ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

National Crime Agency

Ann McKechin: What steps she is taking to engage with local political leaders on reaching agreement to enable the National Crime Agency to operate in Northern Ireland.

Iain McKenzie: What steps she is taking to engage with local political leaders on reaching agreement to enable the National Crime Agency to operate in Northern Ireland.

Theresa Villiers: It is important for the security of people in Northern Ireland that the NCA should be fully operational there. I continue to raise this issue with the Northern Ireland parties, the Justice Minister and the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

Ann McKechin: I thank the Secretary of State for her reply, but she will be aware of the concerns about the issue of human trafficking, which is a problem across the United Kingdom, including trafficking from Northern Ireland into Scotland. Can she confirm that despite the fact that the National Crime Agency is not yet operating in Northern Ireland, the PSNI does have the full resources to enable it to tackle this heinous crime?

Theresa Villiers: I fully share the hon. Lady’s sentiments about the horrific nature of the crime of human trafficking. Because it raises immigration questions, the NCA does have power to act in this area within Northern Ireland, so I can give her the assurance that it is providing the PSNI with all the support that is required on those matters. It is on crimes within the devolved sphere that the NCA’s capacity is currently restricted.

Iain McKenzie: At the moment, the NCA cannot carry out police operations in Northern Ireland, and last year the Police Service of Northern Ireland had to draft in officers from around the UK. Will the Secretary of State confirm her intention to see a fully staffed Police Service of Northern Ireland above the minimum number identified by the Chief Constable, before the marching season and before other commemoration parades take place?

Theresa Villiers: The Government have provided significant extra funding for the PSNI—£200 million in the current spending review and £30 million in 2015-16. I continue to support and encourage the discussions between the Department of Finance and Personnel, the Department of Justice and the PSNI on the Executive’s contribution to police funding. It is also important that the NCA provide as much support as it can to the PSNI, within the constraints it is under because of the lack of a legislative consent motion.

Neil Carmichael: Will the Secretary of State assure the House that she will not entertain any ideas of amnesties for terrorists, unlike the last Labour Government?

Theresa Villiers: This Government do not support amnesties for terrorists, and we oppose the legislation put forward by the previous Government which would have amounted to an effective amnesty.

Robert Buckland: On the prevention and detection of crime, does my right hon. Friend share the shock of many of us that the Executive seem to have interfered in the Downey case and others and in the actions of the police and the prosecution? Will she assure me that it will not be the policy of this Government to blur the lines between the Executive and the judicial process in an unacceptable way?

Mr Speaker: Quite an ingenious effort, but I would remind the Secretary of State that the question is about the National Crime Agency.

Theresa Villiers: I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government recognise fully the importance of ensuring that prosecution decisions are made independently of the Executive.

Nigel Dodds: Clearly, the failure to operate the National Crime Agency as a result of republican blocking of that is a disgrace and it is undermining policing and justice. But equally, the Downey decision has undermined confidence in policing and justice. Will the Secretary of State now publish the numbers of letters that have been sent to these people—the names, the contents of these letters; and would she now rescind this disgraceful and shameful back-door scheme?

Theresa Villiers: I fully understand the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns, and it was clearly a very difficult day for the families yesterday. As I published in my written ministerial statement, we believe that around 200 cases were processed through this scheme. The individuals were sent factual letters indicating whether or not they were wanted for terrorism offences. It was not an amnesty and it was never intended to be such. There was always the recognition that if further evidence of further offences was produced, a prosecution was then a possibility. The reason for the outcome of the Downey case was that unfortunately a grave mistake was made, when Mr Downey was sent a letter saying he was not wanted for offences when in fact he was.

Nigel Dodds: The grief, the words of devastation from the families of the soldiers concerned in the Hyde park bombing are an indictment of what is going on. There is
	outrage, not just in Northern Ireland but right across the country, about this—how an official’s letter can trump due process of law in this country. Will the Secretary of State realise how serious this is, not just for the process of law and order, but for the very stability and continued existence of devolution in Northern Ireland, where the Assembly has full responsibility for policing and justice, but these facts were withheld from the Justice Minister and the First Minister? This has very, very serious implications for devolution.

Theresa Villiers: I am very much aware of the very serious implications this case has, and they have also been conveyed to me by the First Minister, whom I look forward to meeting this evening to discuss this matter with.
	As I announced yesterday, the Northern Ireland Office, along with the PSNI, is undertaking an urgent check of all letters that were issued under the scheme to establish whether any further mistakes were made that could lead to the same outcome that was witnessed in relation to the Downey case. It is also vital that we get to the bottom of why such a very serious mistake was made within the PSNI and why the PSNI did not draw it to the attention of the Northern Ireland Office, and of course I will be discussing this matter with David Ford and the First Minister.

Public Sector Jobs

Chris Evans: What assessment she has made of the effects of the reduction in public sector jobs in Northern Ireland.

Andrew Robathan: The long-term sustainable answer for the Northern Ireland economy must be a private sector revival. There have been significant labour market improvements over the last year and private sector jobs are up by more than 10,000 from the beginning of 2012.

Chris Evans: I thank the Minister for that response. Ireland, like Wales, has traditionally been reliant on public sector jobs. It is estimated that 26,000 public sector jobs in Northern Ireland will be lost by 2017, so has the Secretary of State had a chance to study the active industrial policy of Wales, which in the last week has seen jobs attracted to Pinewood studios in Wentloog and to General Dynamics UK in Oakdale in my constituency?

Andrew Robathan: Actually, I have not studied the experience of Wales, although, as the hon. Gentleman will know, my family comes from his constituency. However, through the Northern Ireland Executive, we have agreed the economic pact, which understands the need to rebalance the Northern Ireland economy further towards private sector involvement and less towards public sector employment. For instance, in terms of Pinewood studios we have got a rather interesting programme called—what is it called?

Mr Speaker: While the Minister is thinking about it, we will call a supplementary question. We are deeply obliged to the Minister.

Philip Hollobone: What steps are being taken to encourage Northern Ireland to be plugged in to the digital economy?

Andrew Robathan: May I just say that the programme a “Game of Thrones” is made in Belfast now? I do not recommend it personally, Mr Speaker, having watched the lot.
	We are taking steps on the digital economy and indeed, throughout the United Kingdom, we are going for digital by default. We are very keen that more is done in Northern Ireland in terms of the use of internet and digital in general. We are very clear about that, but this matter is the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Executive and we help them with it through the economic pact.

Margaret Ritchie: Contrary to the views of the Minister, and given the importance of public sector jobs to the local economy, what further measures will be taken to protect and retain Driver and Vehicle Agency jobs in Northern Ireland as well as Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs jobs in Newry?

Andrew Robathan: The hon. Lady, for whom I have a great respect, has raised this matter with me before. What I would say about both public agencies is, first, they are not our responsibility: the DVA is, of course, the responsibility of the Department for Transport; and HMRC is the responsibility of HMRC. However, I would also say that we need to see in Northern Ireland and elsewhere—this refers to the last question—

Stephen Pound: DVLA.

Andrew Robathan: It is the DVA in Northern Ireland.
	In relation to the last question, those of us in the rest of the United Kingdom, for instance, register our vehicles online; I certainly do and I guess most other Members of the House do. People need to be able to do that in Northern Ireland as well. Changing working practices means that there will be changes in employment. We do not want to see anybody out of work, but we do need changes in working practices.

Jim Shannon: To follow on from the question by the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), the loss of the DVA jobs in Coleraine and the loss of HMRC jobs are very specific to Northern Ireland and will affect the economy. What discussions has the Minister had with Arlene Foster, the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, to ensure that private enterprise can create jobs for those who are losing jobs?

Andrew Robathan: There is a real drive towards getting more private sector jobs. For instance, only this month EE, the mobile phone company, has said that it will create 250 jobs in Northern Ireland; my hon. Friend will know that Arlene Foster and Ministers from the UK Government have visited the Singapore air show, and they hope to bring back potential contracts worth £479 million with Bombardier; and 100 jobs are being created with a £32 million investment in County Antrim. We are keen to get private sector jobs up there. We are getting private investment—the Government are on to exactly that. The economic pact and the investment
	conference last year are driving this forward, and we very much hope that by working together with the Northern Ireland Executive we get better employment.

Haass Talks

Pat Glass: What steps she is taking to ensure a positive outcome from the Haass talks; and if she will make a statement.

Fiona O'Donnell: What recent progress has been made on the Haass talks.

William Bain: What steps she is taking to ensure a positive outcome from the Haass talks; and if she will make a statement.

Theresa Villiers: The UK Government continue to support and encourage party leaders in Northern Ireland as they pursue the Haass issues. A cross-party agreement on flags, parading and the past would deliver significant benefits for Northern Ireland.

Pat Glass: Next month, the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach meet for their second annual review of progress on the joint agreement. Does the Secretary of State agree that that offers an opportunity for both leaders to send out a strong message to all the parties in Northern Ireland about their commitment to securing agreement and advances on all the issues covered by Haass and papers, including the past?

Theresa Villiers: Both the Irish and the UK Governments are strongly supportive of the efforts made by the Northern Ireland parties to reach agreement on those three matters, including the past. I cannot anticipate exactly what will be in the communiqué, but I am sure that the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach will continue to express their support for the process, and the Tanaiste, Eamon Gilmore, continues to be in close touch with me on these matters.

Fiona O'Donnell: Does the Secretary of State agree with Amnesty International that any mechanism for dealing with the past has to be fully human rights compliant, not a patchwork? What legislation and resources does she think will be required to achieve that?

Theresa Villiers: Of course, any new structures would have to be compliant with the UK’s obligations under the Human Rights Act. As for resources, as I have said on a number of occasions, the UK Government would primarily expect the block grant given to the Northern Ireland Executive to be the source of funding for new arrangements on the past. If there is a proposal for additional funding, that would be considered seriously.

William Bain: Does the Secretary of State agree that if Northern Ireland is to have a prosperous future, it needs to reach full accommodation with the events of its past? What steps will she personally take to ensure that the progress that was made in the Haass agreement is carried forward into full agreement in future?

Theresa Villiers: I continue to urge the parties to seek a way forward and to set out the benefits that an agreement on flags, parading and the past would bring to Northern Ireland. I continue to engage closely with the Irish Government on these matters, and I shall continue to do all those things.

Patrick Mercer: What impact does the Secretary of State believe the Downey decision will have on the Haass talks?

Theresa Villiers: As the House has already heard, the Downey cases raises very serious issues. It is absolutely right that we all reflect on the consequences of that decision, and that there is a thorough investigation into the grave mistake by the PSNI which, I am afraid, led to the outcome in the case yesterday.

Therese Coffey: It has been suggested that a culture of trust needs to be developed. Will my right hon. Friend consider looking again at what are effectively the amnesties that were handed out? We need to look at that if Northern Ireland is to prosper in future.

Theresa Villiers: The scheme was created by the previous Government and, to be fair to them, it was never an amnesty, as I have explained to the House. These letters set out in a factual way whether individuals were believed to be wanted by the police in Northern Ireland or elsewhere in the UK. The current Government looked at the scheme in 2012 and decided that future inquiries should be sent to the devolved Administration in line with the devolution of policing and justice.

Bob Blackman: Will my right hon. Friend report on whether there have been any proposals for a timetable to be put in place so that we can progress the Haass talks and reach a conclusion that will be satisfactory for all parties?

Theresa Villiers: There has been much discussion of deadlines and timetables. I certainly think that it would be very helpful if the parties felt able to put together a road map towards reaching a full agreement, but I fully appreciate how difficult these issues are. As we have heard this morning, they have probably been made more difficult to resolve by the events of the last 24 hours.

Peter Hain: On the past and the Downey case, I agree with the Secretary of State that there was never any question of an amnesty. May I also say that I make no apology for being part of a process that brought Northern Ireland from the hideous horror and evil of the past to the position where old enemies have now governed together for seven years in a stable, devolved Government—no apology for that at all? Just as we had to do deals with my Democratic Unionist party friends sitting over there to get to this point, so we have had to do deals with Sinn Fein to get to this point, and that was necessary for the negotiations to succeed and for peace to be established.

Theresa Villiers: Clearly, many difficult decisions were made as a result of the peace process. Some aspects of the Good Friday agreement were hard to swallow for many in the House, but I think that it is important that
	we reflect on the implications of the John Downey case and how a very serious mistake came to be made. Of course, as I have said to the House, we are urgently checking to ensure that similar mistakes were not made in any other cases.

William McCrea: It is rather disgraceful that any former Secretary of State could compare the DUP to terrorists. Has not the Downey revelation in reality made the Haass talks a farce and destroyed any process Haass has ever started? Does it not erode confidence among the general law-abiding community, and is this not indeed a dark day for justice as far as the United Kingdom is concerned?

Theresa Villiers: My primary thoughts are with the families of those who died on that terrible day in July 1982. This whole episode must have provoked very painful memories. I am sure that it is a source of sadness and regret for them, as it is for us, that no one has been brought to justice for the Hyde park bombing. Despite the long shadow that this case is likely to cast, I hope that the Northern Ireland parties will continue to work together to see whether a solution can be found to deal with the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland.

Paul Murphy: Can the Secretary of State convince the House that there is still momentum left in the talks started by Ambassador Haass?

Theresa Villiers: As I have said, these are hugely important matters. It would be of great benefit to Northern Ireland if an agreed way forward could be found. Some very important work has been going on in recent weeks between the party leaders, with real dedication to try to find a way forward. There is no doubt that finding a way forward will now be more difficult, given the events of the past 24 hours, but I continue to encourage the parties to do so.

Mark Durkan: Does the Secretary of State agree that a key reason why we must deal with the past is the need to assure people that we did not end the dirty war just to end up with a dirty peace? Is that not even more imperative after yesterday’s revelations, which prove that some of us were right when we warned the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) and others that they were blighting the peace process with their penchant for side deals, pseudo-deals, sub-deals, shabby deals and secret deals, which are now doing fundamental damage to the Haass process and to the process more widely?

Theresa Villiers: I know that the hon. Gentleman was one of the foremost opponents of Labour’s proposed legislation on an amnesty, which was also opposed by both coalition parties. I cannot agree with him on his characterisation of Northern Ireland’s troubles as a dirty war. I believe that the vast majority of members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the military served with great integrity, distinction, courage and bravery, and we owe them all a huge debt of gratitude for creating the conditions in which peace was eventually found.

Ivan Lewis: Does the Secretary of State agree that the issues raised by the judgment in the John Downey case underline the importance of the Government supporting the all-party talks to reach an
	agreement that puts truth and justice for victims at the heart of dealing with the past? Can she confirm that the current Government have sent out a number of letters to on-the-runs as part of the scheme covered by the Downey case? Today it is important that above all else we remember the soldiers who lost their lives in Hyde park on that dreadful day in July 1982 and the suffering that their families continue to endure. That act was heinous and, like all terrorist atrocities, totally unjustifiable. The PSNI is right to apologise to the families of the victims and commit to an investigation into how such a horrendous error could have occurred.

Theresa Villiers: I agree that a way forward on the past must put victims at its heart. I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that I remain very supportive of efforts through the Haass process to find a way forward. I can confirm that 38 cases were dealt with by the current Government under the OTR administrative scheme. That was reviewed by the current Government, who decided that it was better for any future cases to be referred to the devolved authorities, in line with the devolution of policing and justice, but we did process a number of cases supplied prior to the general election. I also believe that it is absolutely vital that the PSNI investigates thoroughly why things went so badly wrong in relation to this case and that all of us in this House convey our deep and grave sympathy to the victims of the terrible atrocity that took place in Hyde park.

Mr Speaker: Order. First, there are far too many noisy private conversations taking place in the Chamber. Secondly, I very politely ask the Secretary of State please to speak up a little. Mr Lewis, I am sure that the second question will be much shorter than the first.

Ivan Lewis: At a time when the Haass talks are seeking to focus on truth and justice for victims and their families, will the Secretary of State give a commitment today that the Government will stop buck-passing between Departments and prevent the Survivors for Peace programme going to the wall? At the invitation of Labour’s excellent parliamentary candidate in Warrington, Nick Bent, I had the privilege of visiting the Warrington peace centre last week. The Tim Parry Johnathan Ball Foundation for Peace, under the inspirational leadership of Colin and Wendy Parry, does a tremendous job and deserves support from this Government.

Theresa Villiers: I, too, have had the pleasure of visiting the peace centre; Colin Parry has done a wonderful job there. I am keen to work with my excellent hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) to see whether we can find a way forward on the victims’ support charity. I assure the House that the future of the peace centre is secure; I understand that it is separate from the victims’ support charity. However, I fully appreciate the importance of seeking to find a way forward to resolve the difficulties that Colin Parry’s charity faces.

Pat Finucane

Valerie Vaz: What recent discussions she has had with the family and representatives of Pat Finucane.

Andrew Robathan: Neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State nor I have held any discussions with members of the Finucane family or their representatives recently.

Valerie Vaz: It is 25 years since the death of Patrick Finucane, and the Da Silva inquiry found shocking levels of state collusion. When will the Minister act on the growing calls for a public inquiry so that there can be justice for Patrick Finucane?

Andrew Robathan: Today, when people have been speaking of the four soldiers murdered in Hyde park, one of whom I knew—and let us not forget the seven bandsmen murdered in Regent’s park at the same time—we should remember that the overwhelming majority of soldiers, RUC and Ulster Defence Regiment, served with distinction and with honour, as Desmond Da Silva said. Secondly, let me point out to the hon. Lady that the Prime Minister has already apologised twice for the collusion in the murder of Pat Finucane, which was of course disgraceful. The review by Desmond Da Silva found, I think, all the facts that needed to be known. The Secretary of State has indicated to the family that she will meet them should they wish to see her. However, there is a judicial review going on which queers this pitch slightly.

Tony Baldry: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the House can have full confidence in the justice and objectiveness of Sir Desmond Da Silva’s report, Sir Desmond Da Silva being a very distinguished international lawyer who has prosecuted war crimes in Sierra Leone, with the rank of Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations, and recently led the inquiry into war crimes in Syria?

Andrew Robathan: I think we can all agree with that. Sir Desmond is a very distinguished lawyer who found out the facts. As I understand it, Mr Ken Barrett has already been convicted of the murder of Pat Finucane. I do not think that a public inquiry like the Saville inquiry would reveal more than we know already.

Gregory Campbell: The Government have belatedly taken a very forthright view on the inquiry on the Pat Finucane case. Does not the firestorm around the Downey case ensure that the Government should take a position, stick to the position, make it clear that they are not moving from the position, and allow everyone to know that?

Andrew Robathan: I think the firestorm to which the hon. Gentleman refers is one on which we should all reflect. It is important that we move forward. An enormous amount has been achieved in terms of peace in Northern Ireland, and I am concerned about where such actions as took place yesterday may actually lead.

Youth Unemployment

Alex Cunningham: What recent assessment she has made of the effect of the Government’s economic policies on youth unemployment in Northern Ireland.

Debbie Abrahams: What recent assessment she has made of the Government’s economic policies on youth unemployment in Northern Ireland.

Andrew Robathan: Specific measures to address youth unemployment in Northern Ireland are the responsibility of the Executive there. The Government’s efforts to reduce the largest structural deficit in UK peacetime history are now bearing fruit. This, more than anything, will help deliver a sustainable economic recovery and so directly assist young people to find employment.

Alex Cunningham: But the fact remains that this Government continue to fail the young people of Northern Ireland even more than the young people of the rest of the country. Youth unemployment, at 23.8%, is a full 25% higher than the UK average, and that is bad enough. It is clear that special measures are required; does the Minister have anything specific in mind?

Andrew Robathan: We are all concerned about youth unemployment; we must be. However, the hon. Gentleman should know that under the previous Government the number of under-25s in work dropped from 124,000 to 107,000. Under this Government, the number of under-25s in work has risen, and over 3,000 young people in Northern Ireland have come off benefits. It is a growing and improving economy across the United Kingdom that will deliver work to young people.

Debbie Abrahams: I am sorry, but that is just not good enough. We are in danger of seeing a lost generation. Nearly half of those who are unemployed have been unemployed for more than 12 months. What specifically are the Government doing so that we do not lose another generation of young people?

Andrew Robathan: As I have, said, we are all concerned about youth unemployment, but this is a matter for the Northern Ireland Executive, not for us, because we have devolved that responsibility. It is a rising tide of economic recovery that will bring work to young people. The chief executive of the Prince’s Trust in Belfast has said:
	“We’re quietly optimistic about the economy improving this year…it will take months if not years to filter through to…young people”.
	That is what we want to see happening.

Michael Fabricant: My right hon. Friend will be aware that next week is the beginning of national apprenticeship week. What steps is he taking to promote that in Northern Ireland to encourage the employment of young people?

Andrew Robathan: As I have said, this is a devolved matter, but I am delighted to say that there are high-tech and excellent jobs coming forward from companies like Bombardier and Thales which will have apprenticeships, which we applaud.

Stephen Pound: The Secretary of State will be aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) recently visited the Secret Garden project, which employs young people with learning disabilities on the Hillsborough estate. They
	face redundancy. Will the Secretary of State reconsider her decision not to compensate the charity for the £400,000 investment it made in improving the site, and ask Historic Royal Palaces to consider retaining its involvement?

Andrew Robathan: We all, of course, applaud any work with people with learning disabilities. However, that does not mean that this is the best way in which people can be served by a charity in Hillsborough, which would diminish the opportunity for Historic Royal Palaces to look after Hillsborough castle. I question the figure of £400,000 and think we should go back and look at the accounts more carefully.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Graeme Morrice: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 26 February.

David Cameron: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this House I shall have further such meetings later today.

Graeme Morrice: I thank the Prime Minister for his answer, but I think we should congratulate Team GB on its tremendous success at the recent winter Olympics.
	This week HSBC announced staff bonuses of £2.3 billion and a 140% pay rise to its chief executive. When ordinary British families face a cost of living crisis and too many people languish on the dole, is it not time for this Government to listen to Labour and to tax bank bonuses to get our young people back to work?

David Cameron: Let me join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating Team GB on its best medal performance at a winter games since 1924. It was a huge honour to welcome them to Downing street, where I had an explanation of the tasks of skeleton bobsleighing and, indeed, curling. Our congratulations go to everyone involved and all those who helped to train them.
	Bank bonuses are well down from the appalling situation that was left by the previous Labour Government, but what we need to see is the proper control of all forms of pay and bonuses. What I do not want to see, and what I think we would get from the Labour party, is a focus only on bonuses, because, of course, you can claw back a bonus, but you cannot claw back pay. We do not want to go back to the days of Fred Goodwin, where you could be paid well for an appalling performance.

Alan Beith: Does the Prime Minister recognise that it is part of the job of Church leaders to challenge Governments about poverty? Will he discuss with them measures that can help people out of poverty, like the pupil premium, cutting tax on low pay and measures to help troubled families? There is nothing particularly moral about
	pouring even more borrowed money into systems that can trap people in poverty and dependence on state benefits.

David Cameron: My right hon. Friend, who is himself a distinguished churchman, talks perfect sense. There is nothing moral about running up huge deficits and out-of-control welfare bills. If we do not deal with those problems the whole country will be poorer. We should listen to the words of George Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, who said that
	“the churches should beware of the dangers of blithely defending a gargantuan welfare budget that every serious politician would cut as a matter of economic common sense.”
	I think that serious politicians have to engage with this, and that should go for everybody.

Edward Miliband: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Graeme Morrice) and the Prime Minister in congratulating Team GB on a brilliant performance at the winter Olympics.
	As the immediate threat of floods passes, there are still thousands out of their homes; parts of the Somerset levels are still under water; and hundreds of businesses and farms are still struggling to recover. The Committee on Climate Change, the House of Commons Library and the UK Statistics Authority have all now said that Government investment in flood defences has fallen. In the light of this and of the events we have seen, does the Prime Minister think it is right to revisit the plans for investment in flood defences?

David Cameron: We will look very carefully at the plans for flood defences, but of course we have set out spending figures all the way to 2020, not all of which are fully committed, which are major investments in flood defences. As I said two weeks ago, as the waters recede and as the Environment Agency and others can look at what happened, we can review and see what new measures might be necessary. Let me just repeat the point that in this four-year period, and indeed in this Parliament, overall spending on flood defences has gone up.

Edward Miliband: I am afraid that the figures the Prime Minister is quoting are phoney, and I believe he knows it. This is what the UK Statistics Authority says—[Interruption.] I know that Government Members do not want to hear it, but it says:
	“government funding for flood defences was lower in both nominal and real terms during the current spending period than during the last”.
	The only way to claim otherwise is by ignoring inflation and claiming credit for the money that other organisations—other than Government—spend. Why does the Prime Minister not admit it? They have cut flood defence spending, and he has been caught out.

David Cameron: The fact is that in the period from 2010, when I became Prime Minister, to 2014, the spending has been £2.4 billion—more than the £2.2 billion in the previous four years. In the five-year period of this Parliament, during all of which I will be Prime Minister, the spending is higher than for the previous five years. Those are the facts.
	I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that I think having this debate is slightly pointless. The whole country should be coming together to deal with flood defences. The fact is that from the moment he turned up in a flooded village with the Labour candidate alongside him, he has completely misjudged the mood of the country.

Edward Miliband: First, let me say to the Prime Minister that if it is a simple choice between the UK Statistics Authority and him, people will believe the UK Statistics Authority on what has happened. The assessment of how much to invest in flood defence depends significantly on an assessment of the risks posed by man-made climate change. In opposition, he said this about climate change:
	“It’s easy to do the softer things like ride your bike, visit glaciers and rebuild your house to make it green”—
	it is he who said it—
	“but it’s only clear you mean it when you do the tough things as well. Like telling the truth about climate change.”
	So what is the truth about climate change?

David Cameron: The truth about climate change is that this Government have a programme to reduce carbon right across our economy. We started with the Government themselves: compared with the Government the right hon. Gentleman left in 2010, when he was Energy and Climate Change Secretary, the Government’s own carbon emissions are down 14%.
	Let me just return to the issue of flood defence spending, because I think the people of this country will want to know this. The right hon. Gentleman is committed to a zero-based spending review. [Interruption.] “Yes, we are,” says the shadow Chancellor in an unusually helpful intervention. A zero-based spending review means that the Opposition cannot pledge to match the flood spending we are making in 2016, 2017, 2018 and all the way to 2020. The people of this country have absolutely no guarantee that they will take either climate change seriously or flood defences seriously.

Edward Miliband: What total nonsense, and the Prime Minister knows it. It is very interesting, because someone who in opposition wanted to talk as much as he could about climate change is now desperate to get off the subject. I asked him a question: will he just set out for his party and for the country his views on man-made climate change?

David Cameron: I believe that man-made climate change is one of the most serious threats that this country and this world face. That is why we have the world’s first green investment bank here in Britain. That is why, unlike in the 13 wasted years of Labour, we are building the first nuclear power station for 30 years in this country. That is why we have cut the carbon that is emitted by the Government by 14% since coming to office. That is why we have set out, year after year, carbon budgets for this country. The Opposition talk a good game, but it takes people to come in and govern effectively to deal with it.

Edward Miliband: Excellent; we are getting somewhere. I agree with what the Prime Minister said about the importance of climate change. The reason this matters
	is that people in the most important positions in his Government are going around questioning climate change. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has said:
	“People get very emotional about this subject and I think we should just accept that the climate has been changing for centuries,”
	and he refuses to be briefed on climate change. The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), when asked about climate change, said:
	“You are not going to draw me on that. I’ve not had time to get into the…climate change debate.”
	That is the Energy Minister! Will the Prime Minister clarify his position? Is he happy to have climate change deniers in his Government?

David Cameron: This is obviously the new approach to Prime Minister’s questions: the right hon. Gentleman comes to the House and praises the Prime Minister for his commitment on climate change and the environment. I like the new style. I thought that I might miss Punch and Judy, but this is much more refreshing.
	The Government have a solid track record of cutting carbon, negotiating internationally and investing in nuclear. We have the biggest renewable energy programme in our country’s history. For the first time in a long time, we are on track to meet our renewables targets. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to get up again and congratulate me on that excellent record on the environment.

Edward Miliband: The whole country will have heard that the Prime Minister cannot answer the question about whether people need to believe in man-made climate change to be part of his Government. He has gone from thinking that it was a basic part of his credo to thinking that it is a matter of individual conscience. He used to claim that it was his passion above all else. Here’s the thing: if we are properly to protect—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The questions and the answers will be heard, however long it takes. Those who are exercising their vocal cords in a rather excessive way really ought to calm down. There is quite a long way to go.

Edward Miliband: Here’s the thing: if we are properly to protect the British people against the threats that they face, we cannot have doubt and confusion in the Government on the issue of climate change. The Prime Minister needs to rediscover the courage of his past convictions and tell his party to get real on climate change.

David Cameron: People can measure the courage of my convictions by my acts in government: the green investment bank, the cuts in carbon, the investment in renewables and the investment in nuclear. The right hon. Gentleman talks a good game, but he did not achieve anything in office. The most serious form of denial in British politics today comes from the reality deniers of the Labour party. What is their plan for the deficit? Nothing. What is their plan for welfare reform? Nothing. What is their plan for long-term investment, because that is what is required in respect of climate change? It requires long-term investment like high-speed
	rail, long-term investment like nuclear power and long-term investment like fixing our economy. That is what this Government are doing. All he does is get up and deliver a lot of hot air.

Peter Bottomley: Will my right hon. Friend seek advice on the report by the whistleblowing commission set up by Public Concern at Work, which was led by Sir Anthony Hooper and included Michael Woodford, the whistleblower at Olympus, and see whether he can bring together people in Government to consider its recommendations and how we can stop the persecution of people like Dr Kim Holt, who was the whistleblower before the baby P case, and others whom I will not mention now?

David Cameron: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. As he knows, the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 protects most workers from being unfairly dismissed by their employer when they have reported a matter of concern—when they have blown the whistle. We strengthened those protections in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013. We will always back whistleblowers when they challenge poor standards, particularly in large organisations. I am happy to ensure that he discusses with the relevant Minister—probably the Minister for Government Policy—any further steps that we need to take in that direction.

Nigel Dodds: Does the Prime Minister get the depth of the hurt among victims’ families, and the deep sense of public outrage right across the country as a result of the outcome of the Downey case? He needs to understand that for a letter signed by an official to trump due process and the courts of this land without any parliamentary, legislative or statutory underpinning, is deeply offensive to the public in this country. Will he now scrap these get-out-of-jail-free letters immediately, and will he do everything in his power to reverse the despicable decision in the Downey case, so that justice can be done for the families of the bereaved?

David Cameron: First, I completely understand the depth of anger and concern that people will feel right across the country about the appalling events that happened in 1982, and the fact that the person responsible is now not going to be appropriately tried. Of course that is absolutely shocking, and our first thought should be with those 11 soldiers and their families and friends. It may have happened 32 years ago, but anyone who has lost someone in a situation like that will mourn them today as if it happened yesterday. We should be absolutely clear: Downey should never have received the letter that he received. It was a dreadful mistake, and we now need to have a rapid factual review to make sure that this cannot happen again. Whatever happens, we have to stick to the principle that we are a country and a Government under the rule of law.

Lorraine Fullbrook: My right hon. Friend has taken swift action to help flood-hit communities, and I welcome the £10 million relief fund for farmers. The grade 1 farmland in the Alt-Crossens basin is at risk from Environment Agency scaremongering to reduce land drainage and close pumping stations. In light of recent events, will my
	right hon. Friend reassure growers in my constituency that the necessary protections will be given to their land, and that as well as being able to react swiftly, the Government are planning for the long-term security of this profitable industry?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point and I am glad that she is advertising to her farmers the availability of the £10 million fund, which I hope will be useful for those who have lost productive land because it has been under water for so long. The point she makes about farmers, landowners and others being nervous about dredging and draining their land because of EA rules is a good one. As I have said before, I think the pendulum swung too far against dredging, and that needs to change and that will change. It is not the only answer or the whole answer to the problems she discusses, but it does have a proper part in properly managing the landscape.

Jack Dromey: The tragic death on a Birmingham street of Sarah Child devastated her family and shocked the community. A much-loved sister and daughter, she was killed, and her sister Claire—who was pregnant—was severely injured by a speeding driver doing 64 mph, who got but four years in prison. Does the Prime Minister agree that the time has come to look again at the sentencing of those who kill with a car?

David Cameron: First, my heart goes out to the hon. Gentleman’s constituent who was tragically killed in this incident, and to her family. I do think it right to look again at motoring offences and the penalties that are given. I have discussed this issue with the Secretary of State for Justice, who has already made some proposals and changes in that area. I am sure he will be listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Charlotte Leslie: The response of NHS Wales to Sir Bruce Keogh’s e-mail recommending a Keogh-style investigation into Welsh hospitals of concern was that it would respond only to legitimate concerns. Is the Prime Minister as astounded as I am that NHS Wales thinks that the views of the chief medical director of England, and now the Royal College of Surgeons, are not legitimate, and will he work with the Leader of the Opposition and try to persuade him to get his party in Wales to reverse that terrible decision and carry out an investigation into Welsh hospitals that could save lives?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a very important point and Sir Bruce Keogh’s views should be respected and listened to by the NHS in Wales. In particular, she makes a point about the Royal College of Surgeons and what it has said today, which is effectively that there are people on NHS waiting lists in Wales who are dying because waiting lists are too long and because the NHS is not being properly managed, properly funded and properly reformed in Wales. That is a matter for the Labour Welsh Assembly Government, and they need to get their act together.

Tessa Jowell: Will the Prime Minister accept the overwhelming humanitarian case for guaranteeing long-term support
	to victims and survivors of terrorism? If so, will he agree to meet with me, Colin Parry and survivors of the 7/7 London bombings who have benefited from the services of the Survivors for Peace programme, which is now facing imminent closure? In doing so, will he remember his pledge that survivors of terrorism must know that they always have the support of the whole country?

David Cameron: First, may I commend the right hon. Lady for the extraordinary work she did in government and continues to do in opposition to help the survivors of terrorist attacks, particularly the dreadful attacks that took place in London? I have seen at first hand the experience and brilliant touch that she brings to this important work. I am very happy to have the meetings she discussed. The Foundation for Peace is a unique charity that does an extraordinary job in supporting victims and families. I will be discussing its future with my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) too. Obviously, we want to make sure that all these institutions can continue their excellent work. I am happy to hold those discussions with the right hon. Lady and, as I said, with my hon. Friend.

Julian Smith: We all want to see a more balanced economy. Does the Prime Minister agree that today’s stonking upward rise in business investment of over 9% shows that British business and British entrepreneurs are really rising to this challenge?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Right across this House, many experts have been saying that what we need is a balanced recovery—one that sees increases in exports as well as increases in consumption, and one that sees increases in investment from business. The uprating of the GDP figures showing an increase in exports, and, as he says, a very large increase in business investment, is hugely welcome for our country.

Margaret Ritchie: Given yesterday’s court revelations of a secret scheme, does the Prime Minister believe that, as well as the parties in Northern Ireland progressing the elements on dealing with the past from the Haass talks, there is a need for transparency from the two Governments regarding the confused and shabby ways in which they sought to deal with the past since the agreement, remembering that Downing street was involved in this matter?

David Cameron: I agree with the hon. Lady that the Haass talks made some good progress. They were trying to deal with some of the most difficult issues in Northern Ireland, in terms of flags and parades, and perhaps the most difficult issue of all, the past. It is going to take a lot of courage and bravery from people on all sides in order to make progress in this way. She wants to point the finger, apparently, particularly at Downing street. I would argue that, when it has come to dealing with things like the Bloody Sunday inquiry and the de Silva report, Downing street is very happy to play its role in helping to bring parties together to make sure that we continue with peace in Northern Ireland.

Richard Bacon: Given what the Prime Minister has called the Leader of the Opposition’s new approach and Chancellor Angela Merkel’s forthcoming visit tomorrow, does he think that there is something we can learn from her about an even broader based approach to coalition building that would unite the whole country? While it is true that under such circumstances he would have to give some red meat to Labour and some red meat to us, it would have the huge advantage for all of us of leaving the Liberal Democrats where they belong.

David Cameron: My admiration for Angela Merkel is enormous and there are many things that she has achieved that I would like to copy, not least getting re-elected, but a grand coalition is one thing I do not want to copy. I think the idea of a grand coalition is a bit too much for me.

Jim Shannon: What steps will the Prime Minister and the Government take to insist that the National Crime Agency co-operates with the Police Service of Northern Ireland under the legislation to tackle people trafficking in Northern Ireland? Will he give an assurance that those involved in criminality in Northern Ireland will not be in possession of a letter that is their passport to freedom, ever mindful that the NCA does not have free reign in Northern Ireland?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I have been very impressed by the work the National Crime Agency is now doing. I think it is a huge improvement on its predecessor. It has got real strength, heft and numbers in terms of being able to tackle organised crime. It is bad for Northern Ireland that the NCA is not able to properly operate there. I hope that over time, with talks between the parties, it will be possible to make progress. That would be good for Northern Ireland and good for our fight against organised crime.

Nadine Dorries: May I take this opportunity to congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on your new role as chancellor of Bedfordshire university?
	In the last three years, 99 brave soldiers have given their lives for this country in Afghanistan. In the same period, 264 British women have been murdered—murders perpetrated by men—and over three quarters of those women were stalked before they were murdered. Will the Prime Minister please give a guarantee that this Government will introduce legislation to protect women from that fate in the future, particularly given the ease with which stalkers can now begin their stalking activities via social media and the internet?

David Cameron: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what she says. She is right that stalking is an appalling crime. It can destroy lives and we need to do as much as we can to crack down on it. We have, of course, introduced a new offence to make absolutely clear the view that we take of it. The new stalking laws are also equally applicable to online, cyber-stalking and harassment, and the Crown Prosecution Service has published guidelines for involving communications sent via social media, so we tackle this in the online world as well as the physical
	world. However, I am very happy to write to my hon. Friend with all the detail of all the things we are doing and to see whether there are further steps we can take.

Helen Jones: When the Prime Minister was asked about the bedroom tax last year, he said:
	“what we have done is to exempt disabled people who need an extra room.”—[Official Report, 27 November 2013; Vol. 571, c. 254.]
	Now that we know that people with terminal illness who cannot share a room, those who have to store equipment such as dialysis machines and families with severely disabled children who need occasional respite are all subject to this pernicious tax, would he like to revise that answer and to apologise to the disabled people to whom he gave false hope?

David Cameron: First, let me repeat—this is a basic issue of fairness—that people who are renting in the private sector do not get additional money for rooms that they do not use, so it is not fair to have a different set of rules to the social sector. But we also have a large discretionary payment system in order to help families such as the ones the hon. Lady mentions.

Jessica Lee: Does the Prime Minister agree that the increase in jobs—or, as has been said, the “stonking” increase—in the private sector is leading the UK’s economic recovery and is helped, if I may say so, by the range of engineers, manufacturers and retailers in Erewash, who are employing people and sending their exports round the world?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We now have 1.6 million new private sector jobs, meaning that there are 1.3 million more people employed in our country. We are seeing that growth in employment in every region of the country. Some are growing faster than others, and we need to keep up the work to make sure that this is a broadly balanced recovery, but one of the indicators of economic success is that week in, week out, the leader of the Labour party comes to the House of Commons and cannot mention employment. He cannot talk about the economy or about jobs, investment and growth, because all the things he said would never happen are happening in our economy.

Michael Connarty: Could the Prime Minister focus on the fact that Atos now wants to give up its contract for the work capability test? Is it not time to change the test back to one based on the medical evidence of the consultants of those who are applying? When 158,000 appeals are upheld, surely it is time for him also to rescind his decision to charge people for appeals.

David Cameron: First, I hope it is not too uncharitable to point out that the Atos contract was actually awarded by the last Labour Government. Of course we are now discussing and debating with the company how this should be taken forward, but the fact is that we do need in this country a way of determining whether people are fit for work. When it comes also to the issue of sanctions in our benefits system, frankly it is right that people who are offered a job and do not take it should now face
	a sanction. I think that will be the choice at the next election: one party in favour of hard-working people; another party obsessed by bigger and bigger benefits.

Bob Russell: Britain’s armed forces are the best. They defend our interests at home and overseas and, as we are witnessing, are taking essential action in flooded areas. Prime Minister, please recognise the folly of reducing the size of Her Majesty’s armed forces and stop sacking full-time servicemen and women.

David Cameron: First, let me take this opportunity to praise the extraordinary role that armed forces personnel have played during the floods in our country over the past few weeks. It has been extraordinary to see their work.
	What we have done, in terms of defence, is remove the £38 billion black hole that we were left. Of course, that meant making difficult decisions, including difficult decisions about the size of the Army, Navy and Air Force, but we now have one of the top five defence budgets in the world, in terms of spending. We are coming to the end of all the redundancy schemes, and we can now point loudly and proudly to the extraordinary investment that we shall be making in type 45 destroyers, new aircraft carriers, our hunter-killer submarines and our A400M aircraft—the best equipment that any armed forces could have anywhere in the world.

Luciana Berger: Yesterday I met Billy. He is 24 years old, and he had worked since the age of 15 until he lost his job a year ago. Billy told me that he had to resort to going through supermarket skips to find out-of-date food just so that he could eat. Billy is desperate to work. Why will the Prime Minister not offer him a job guarantee, rather than his having to scavenge for food in Iceland’s bins?

David Cameron: What we are doing for Billy, and for thousands like him, is offering jobs and hope that simply were not there under the last Labour Government. Opposition Members come here week after week to try to say that the country is somehow poorer or worse off under this Government, but let me remind the hon. Lady what it was like in 2009. In 2009, there were 1 million more people in poverty, 500,000 more children in poverty, 150,000 more unemployed people, and 750,000 more people claiming benefit than there are today. So yes, there is more to do, but we have a proud record of giving people jobs, because we are sticking to a long-term economic plan.

Mark Pawsey: Just over a week ago, I joined year 5 and 6 pupils at Revel primary school in Monks Kirby, in my constituency. I asked them what they would like to ask the Prime Minister. One of them said that he would like to know why the Government kept on making so many new laws. I wonder if the Prime Minister could tell my young constituent what his Administration is doing to reduce the burden of legislation.

David Cameron: I think that my hon. Friend’s constituent could have a promising future in this place, because that is the sort of attitude that we need. I would
	say to my hon. Friend’s constituent that this will be the first Government since the war to leave office at the end of their term with fewer regulations in place than were there at the beginning. That is because of the excellent work of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and of the Minister for Government Policy, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin), who have done a brilliant job in taking regulation off business so that we can create the wealth and jobs that we need.

Joan Walley: The Prime Minister will know of the disappointment that there has been no oral statement to the House about the future of Stafford hospital. University Hospital of North Staffordshire is expected to take on the entire running of the combined sites for the people of north Staffordshire. Does the Prime Minister accept that at the last count there was a funding gap of £39 million in capital costs and £4 million in revenue costs? Will he ensure that whatever the new arrangements are, there will be an opportunity to question the Government, and that these changes will not proceed at the expense of the health of people in north Staffordshire?

David Cameron: What I can say to the hon. Lady is that a written statement is being made today about the future of Stafford hospital. It has been very difficult to try to deal with the appalling situation that we were in with that hospital. I am sure that there will be opportunities to debate the issue in the House, but I think the hon. Lady will see that what are being proposed
	are good steps to ensure that A and E continues at Stafford hospital, and hard work to establish whether it will be possible to continue consultant-led maternity services in the future so that people can go on having their babies delivered at the hospital. That is what I want to see. My right hon. Friend the Health Secretary will set out his proposals later, and I am sure that there will be many opportunities to debate them—and, indeed, to debate all the lessons that need to be learnt from the failure of Stafford hospital in the past.

Bob Blackman: Earlier this month, millions of Londoners were inconvenienced by a pointless Underground strike which was supported by only 30% of union members. Will my right hon. Friend agree to conduct a review with the aim of increasing the threshold so that pointless strikes in our public services can be outlawed?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend has made a good point. When we see how many people rely on essential public services, we know that the time has come to consider what changes we can make, and whether it is possible for us to see fewer of these strikes in future.
	Another problem is that, despite repeated requests, the Labour party has completely refused to condemn what was a totally unnecessary strike. However, I do not think that we should be surprised, because this week they are all going on a cosy weekend with their trade union masters. We were told that they were heading for divorce; I think that they are going to renew their vows.

John Downey

Laurence Robertson: (Urgent Question): To ask theAttorney-General to make a statement on the background to yesterday’s judgment on John Downey.

Dominic Grieve: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. As I set out in a written statement to the House this morning, and further to yesterday’s written statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the prosecution of John Anthony Downey on four charges of murder and one of causing an explosion with intent arising out of the Hyde park bombing in 1982 has been stayed. I apologise to hon. Members who have read my written statement because, of necessity, a large part of what I say will repeat it.
	Hon Members will know that the alleged offences arose out of the notorious bombing carried out by the Provisional IRA in Hyde park on the morning of Tuesday 20 July 1982. As members of the Blues and Royals Regiment of the Household Cavalry rode along South Carriage drive on their way to Horse Guards for the changing of the guard, a car bomb exploded.
	The effect was devastating. Four of the guard were murdered—Lieutenant Anthony Daly, who was aged 23, and Trooper Simon Tipper, who was aged 19, died at the scene; Lance Corporal Jeffrey Young, who was aged 19, died the following day; and Squadron Quartermaster Corporal Roy Bright, who was aged 36, died two days after that. A total of 31 other people were injured, a number of them seriously, and seven horses were destroyed.
	Mr Downey was arrested on 19 May 2013 at Gatwick airport when he was en route to Greece. On his arrest, he produced a letter stating that he was free to enter the jurisdiction without fear of arrest. Despite that letter, he was charged by the Crown Prosecution Service with four counts of murder. Before he was charged, my consent was sought, as the law requires, for him to face a charge of causing an explosion, and I gave that consent. I believed that it was right to do so, and I remain of exactly the same view today.
	As acknowledged by the judge, the allegations faced by Mr Downey were of the utmost seriousness. The bombing was an attempt by the Provisional IRA to bring its terrorist campaign to London and to attack armed forces personnel who were on ceremonial duties. Whatever the circumstances in which the letter had been sent, and it is now clear that its assurances were wrongly given, it was right that the matter should be tested in court. Neither I nor the CPS were prepared to accept that the letter and the circumstances in which it had been given were such as to automatically prevent Mr Downey’s prosecution. The prosecution of a very serious offence of that kind is plainly in the public interest.
	The court heard full argument and considered a great deal of documentation. The judgment given is a detailed and careful assessment of the case and the circumstances in which Mr Downey received his letter. It is worthy of note that the defence offered four grounds on which they argued that the case should be stayed, and that on three of those grounds the judge found for the prosecution.
	At no point did the judge suggest that it was inappropriate for the prosecution to be brought—indeed, he noted that
	“the public interest in ensuring that those who are accused of serious crime should be tried is a very strong one”.
	My own very strong view is that it was entirely appropriate and proper for this matter to be considered in a court of law.
	Notwithstanding that, the judgment has now been given, and the CPS and I accept that judgment entirely. We do not consider that it gives rise to any prospect of a successful appeal, and we have therefore notified the court that we will not be appealing. My sympathies above all are with the families of those who died and with all those who were injured on that day.

Laurence Robertson: I should like to thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing this urgent question, and I thank the Attorney-General for his statement. May I explore some of the background to this matter? It has been clearly stated that the letter did not constitute an amnesty, but if that is the case, why did the judge take the decision that he took? In these circumstances, it would surely be appropriate for the Government to consider making an appeal.
	May I also explore how we have arrived at this situation? I was a shadow Northern Ireland Minister when the Northern Ireland offenders Bill was withdrawn because it was obviously not going to get through Parliament. There was no mention at the time of any other deal being likely. Does the Attorney-General not consider what has happened since then to be a discourtesy to Parliament? Does he, like me, wonder who authorised the scheme that seems to have replaced the legislation? That must surely have been the then Prime Minister. Will the Attorney-General tell us who wrote the letters to the people who are often referred to as on-the-runs? What was in the letters? And I am afraid that I have to ask why the Police Service of Northern Ireland gave an assurance to Mr Downey that no other police force in the United Kingdom had any interest in him, when it knew that that was not the case.
	May I also ask the Attorney-General how many people have received letters under the scheme? Will he tell me whether all those who have received such letters are from a republican background? At a time when the PSNI is advertising for Bloody Sunday witnesses to come forward, does he not think this situation risks undermining the entire criminal justice system of the United Kingdom?

Dominic Grieve: May I first make the point that it is clear from the judgment and the supporting material that the administrative scheme was not, and never could be, an amnesty? That might have been what the previous Government sought at one time, but an amnesty could be achieved only through legislation, and no such legislation was put through the House. Parliament never approved an amnesty.
	This was an administrative scheme that operated independently of the Government and was intended to identify those individuals who, although they might believe that they were unable to return to the jurisdiction without fear of arrest, would in fact face no prosecution or arrest if they were to return. The PSNI would check whether individuals were wanted for arrest or
	for questioning. If the individual had already been considered for prosecution, the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland would make a careful assessment of its files to determine whether any prosecution would follow if the individual were to return. Many of the offences were historical, and in some cases, with the passage of time, essential witnesses might have died or forensic evidence might be no longer available.
	The test applied by the Public Prosecution Service and approved by my predecessors in office was not simply whether the evidential test was no longer met, but whether it could no longer ever be met. Only in those circumstances would an individual be told that they were free to return. The position was also conditional on no further evidence subsequently coming to light of involvement in an offence. As to what happened in this case, it is quite plain that a serious error was made within the PSNI in relation to the information that it collated and provided to the Government. So far as the number of letters is concerned, I think that the better course would be for me to write to my hon. Friend, as I would not wish to give a figure that subsequently had to be adjusted, even very slightly.

Emily Thornberry: I join the right hon. and learned Gentleman in paying tribute to the four soldiers from the Blues and Royals who were murdered in the Hyde park explosion and to the seven members of the Royal Green Jackets who were murdered on the same day in Regent’s park. Our thoughts are with their families, because they must be reliving their suffering all over again at this time.
	I wish to make it clear that the Opposition completely understand and support the Attorney-General’s decision to proceed with the prosecution. We accept that the Downey judgment raises serious issues about how the scheme for dealing with on-the-runs, which, it must be and has been made clear, never offered immunity from prosecution to anyone, has been administered by successive Governments and agencies, and, in particular, about the role of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Can we be assured that we will be told how this grave mistake occurred and how we can be sure that it will not happen again? Can the House be told how many letters to the so-called on-the-runs have been issued since this Government took office? I understand that the Attorney-General will write to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), so perhaps he could copy me in on that letter.
	Will the Attorney-General or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland come to the House to make a statement once the investigations into this matter have been concluded? Perhaps the Attorney-General also shares my concern about the Prime Minister’s comments earlier this afternoon. I presume he has heard them. He may well agree with me that perhaps the Prime Minister misspoke and that it would be to the advantage of us all if the Prime Minister clarified exactly what he meant by them.
	The sending of this letter was a terrible mistake, as was the failure to act when the mistake came to light. But this mistake, egregious though it was, does not discredit the Good Friday agreement and subsequent agreements. Very difficult decisions needed to be made, and very important leadership needed to be shown and was required on all sides. Northern Ireland has been
	delivered from a past of violence and sectarian hatred to a place where there is power sharing between old enemies, and that is what is happening at the moment. The people of Northern Ireland will not lose sight of that and our resolve to make sure that this peace process works must not be diminished.

Dominic Grieve: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her supportive comments about how the CPS and myself approached this case. I think that she knows that an inquiry will be held, and questions for that should be directed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. That matter will be dealt with by the PSNI and the independent ombudsman. Clearly, answers will be needed as to what has happened. In addition, I entirely accept that the public will want to be reassured as to whether this is an isolated instance of a letter being sent mistakenly or whether there might be other such examples, in which case people will want to know what can be done about that. My understanding is that since the current Government came into office some 38 letters have been sent out. I hesitated to comment about what happened under the previous Administration, but once I have that information I will, of course, supply it. It is right to say that the person who had been charged, Mr Downey, denied responsibility for any role in this outrage.
	The final comment I would simply make is this: the victims, including those who survived but were seriously injured, and their families are a matter that the House has constantly to keep in mind. The rule of law requires that those who are accused of grave crimes should be brought to justice, unless there is some overwhelming public interest to the contrary, and I have to say that in this case it was clear to me that the public interest was entirely in favour of seeking to bring this prosecution.

David Davis: This country prides itself on its Government operating solely under the rule of law, so I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will forgive a layman’s question about the law in this case. He describes an administrative system, but under what law is this administrative system created whereby a well-respected judge in this country accepted that this letter should, in effect, give this man an amnesty? Whether or not the Attorney-General describes it in those terms, that will be how it is seen both in this country, including in Northern Ireland, and abroad. So under what law is this constituted? Can he give the House an absolute assurance that he is sure that the criteria that he laid down—the administrative ones—have been followed in all cases?

Dominic Grieve: My right hon. Friend is, of course, right that judges should interpret and implement the law, but I have to say that I have no reason to fault the judgment in this case. As well as the public interest in prosecuting, clear issues of fairness in the way in which prosecutions and investigations are conducted are involved, which are subject to the potential for abuse of process applications—that is what took place in this case.
	The judge provided reasons, clearly set out, as to why, in respect of one of the four grounds advanced, which centred on the letter that had been sent, it would in his view be wrong and an abuse of process if the prosecution
	were allowed to continue. That centred on the fact that the person concerned, Mr Downey, had been misled by the letter. I do not think that I can say any more than that.
	As to the principles underlying the other letters, this was an administrative process—one that was certainly lawful—in providing information solely to those who were not wanted. As I said earlier, it is quite clear from this instance that something went badly wrong. Whether it went badly wrong in other instances is not a matter about which I can, at the moment, help the House.

Peter Hain: May I welcome the fact that the Attorney-General has described the process as lawful? Will he confirm that it was overseen by the Law Officers, including the Attorney-General? The fact of the matter is that the process was designed to address 200 or so individuals. The whole situation was an anomaly. To achieve and lock in the peace process following the 1998 Good Friday agreement, 400 prisoners were released, some of whom had committed terrible atrocities. That angered victims at the time, which I understand, but it was an essential part of getting to where we are now. Similarly, addressing the question of the 200—that anomaly—was part of that as well.
	As for the idea that this was some secret thing out of the blue, I told the House on 11 January 2006 that, in withdrawing the legislative approach to addressing the anomaly,
	“the Government still believe that the anomaly will need to be faced at some stage”—[Official Report, 11 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 288.]
	No one should have been surprised that we had to do that. It was necessary to get to a position in which Northern Ireland could escape its hideous past of evil and terrorism and enter into a period of almost universal peace and stability, with old enemies negotiating and governing together. That should be welcomed and our role as a Government in achieving that should be commended, and I hope that the Attorney-General will do so.

Dominic Grieve: I am extremely mindful that the right hon. Gentleman and others on both sides of the House worked hard during the peace process. Indeed, they continue to do so, as this process is by no means complete. I am the first to pay tribute to him for the work that he did.
	There is an important distinction between releasing prisoners under an exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy, as part of a peace settlement, and any suggestion of an amnesty. Those two things are rather different. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there was no such amnesty. Indeed, any suggestion that we might move towards an amnesty was firmly rejected by widespread views expressed in Parliament.

Peter Hain: And by the Government.

Dominic Grieve: And the Government accepted that. For those reasons, we have a system. The right hon. Gentleman says that he explained to the House—he certainly did—about looking at other methods. I think that it is best for him to explain what publicity or
	otherwise that may have attracted. He is quite right that the system of giving an assurance to an individual that they are not wanted because they are indeed not wanted and there is no current basis for wanting them is not an unlawful process in which to engage.
	Finally, the right hon. Gentleman raised the oversight of the Law Officers. He is quite right that, during this process, the office of the Attorney-General operated as the co-ordinating point, because the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland could not and would not communicate directly with Northern Ireland Office, and therefore collated the information that was supplied. In fairness to my predecessors, it is probably right to say that they would have had no independent means to verify whether or not someone was wanted, and reliance for that was placed on the PSNI and its links with other police forces in the other jurisdictions of this country.

Julian Huppert: This was a horrible and brutal murder, and the outcome is clearly grossly unsatisfactory. If the Attorney-General is sure that nothing further can be done in this case, I accept that, and I hope that he has exhausted all possibilities. Will he say more about how he will check that no other errors of this kind are waiting to come up later?

Dominic Grieve: Those checks are now being conducted. They will not be conducted by me. My office might be involved in them, but I think that they are primarily for the Northern Ireland Office to carry out. I know from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that that is exactly what is happening.
	As to my hon. Friend’s first point, if I had thought there were proper grounds on which this decision could be appealed, then of course the Crown Prosecution Service and I would have taken a different view. However, it is not in the public interest to pursue appeals that are pointless.

Nigel Dodds: I too pay tribute to the families who have been left bereaved as a result of the Hyde park bombing and other such incidents. There are victims everywhere who are feeling very hurt today. The Attorney-General says that it was right to bring the prosecution. Does he still believe that it is right that no stone should be left unturned in the pursuit of justice in this case, and what further action will he now take, given that this case has only been stayed, to ensure that justice will be done, and be seen to be done by the victims?
	In the light of the questions asked by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), many of which were not answered—I thank him for raising them in the House today—does the Attorney-General also agree that there is a strong case for a full inquiry to bring out all the facts, such as under what authority the scheme was set up, who knew about it, who was informed, what the letters said and who they were sent to? That would mean that, for once, Parliament could examine the scheme. There has been no knowledge or even a hint of information about it, which is a scandalous abuse of Parliament and the people’s representatives.

Dominic Grieve: I will, if I may, take the right hon. Gentleman’s final question first. Let me emphasise to him that of course this is a legitimate matter of
	debate, and he may wish to raise it, but it is not one that I, within my departmental responsibilities, could address. It would have to be looked at elsewhere. So far as the stay is concerned, yes it is indeed a stay, but lifting a stay requires specific grounds. I know of no basis for thinking at the moment that a stay is ever likely to be lifted in the future. Obviously, I am not for any reason pre-empting that. If something were to come to light that justified applying to have a stay lifted, then that is a matter that would be considered.
	As for the other cases and whether they will be pursued, I would like to make the position absolutely clear. My responsibilities as far as criminal justice is concerned lie within England and Wales; Northern Ireland is now devolved. If cases are brought to the Crown Prosecution Service suggesting the commission of very serious crimes by individuals who can be apprehended and brought to justice, then what I said earlier must be the case. It would generally be in the public interest—it would be very rare to think of where it would not be in the public interest—for such a prosecution to be pursued. That is quite irrespective of the amnesty provisions of the Good Friday agreement, which may reduce, for example, the period of time somebody might spend in prison. It is always in the public interest that crime should be prosecuted.

Graham Brady: Given that the letter was issued in error, can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that it has now been rescinded and will have no effect on any future occasion?

Dominic Grieve: No, I cannot give my hon. Friend that assurance. I understand his point, and I am happy to get back to him.

Kate Hoey: Does the Attorney-General understand that all these fine words about errors and administration mistakes will not wash with the people of Northern Ireland who will see that this has been an amnesty under another name? It is an amnesty that has been put through without this Parliament’s permission when it specifically decided, when the Bill was withdrawn, that it did not want it to happen for on-the-runs. I want to know why we are blaming an individual in the police for writing or sending those letters; they did not write them without somebody at the very, very top of Government telling them to do so.

Dominic Grieve: As for the hon. Lady’s views about how this would be viewed in Northern Ireland, I suspect that it would be viewed in the same way on this side of the Irish sea. I do not have any reason to differ with her analysis. Most right-thinking people will be shocked and profoundly troubled by what has happened.
	I disagree with her characterisation of the letters being tantamount to an amnesty; I do not think that they were, if written as they should have been and sent to the recipients who should have received them. Unfortunately, in this case, as we know, somebody received a letter that they should not have received. I do not wish to comment further. The PSNI has indicated that it takes responsibility for the information that was supplied. The hon. Lady believes that fault might lie elsewhere; I am in no position to comment on that one way or the other. I can only say that the information I have at the moment does not suggest that the fault lies elsewhere.

Jack Lopresti: I hope, given these awful events, that the Government think long and hard about the perception that will be apparent if we are giving an amnesty to one group of people while actively pursuing others, like potentially the soldiers who were involved in the Bloody Sunday incident. Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that reconciliation and justice and forgiveness apply to both sides, not just one?

Dominic Grieve: I understand my hon. Friend’s comment. As I have also tried to make clear, I do not believe an amnesty is in place. Ultimately, in relation to offences committed in Northern Ireland, now that justice and policing are both devolved, these are not matters for me.

Alasdair McDonnell: May I offer my sympathy and the sympathy of my party to the relatives of those who died in Hyde Park, and of the seven Royal Green Jackets who died the same day? There are a lot of unanswered questions and I thank the Attorney-General for his information so far. We are told that this was a mistake—an error—but people want to know what aspect of the deal was a mistake. Was the mistake just because this came out? Or was the mistake just one mistake—this one letter—or were there 187 mistakes?
	People want to know about the trade-off. People have been asking me how many of the people receiving letters were British agents. Victims and survivors out there want answers—honest answers. All the victims and survivors deserve honesty, openness, straight answers and, ultimately, justice. They deserve to know why and how their loved ones died, and they deserve to know what was at the back of the deals that were done and the basis for the deals. As my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said, we had a dirty little war. Victims and survivors want to know that we are not going to be burdened with a peace contaminated by dirty little side deals.

Dominic Grieve: As I understand the matter, and there may be others in the House who are better able to answer on the policy background, it arose out of a desire to provide reassurance to those who feared coming back into the jurisdiction that they could do so on the basis that there was no prospect of their being prosecuted on the evidence currently available to the authorities—the PSNI, as in this case, or other police forces. That was the basis of what happened. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is right: the wider way in which the peace process has been conducted is a legitimate matter for political debate, but in my role as the Attorney-General I endeavour to focus on what I see as the issues, and as I said earlier, there was nothing unlawful about the letters. There was no amnesty. But, as I accept, it is quite clear from the court judgment and the facts that emerged in the case of Mr Downey that Mr Downey should never have been sent the letter.

Bob Stewart: My heart breaks for the families and the victims of this appalling atrocity. Five months after it happened, my soldiers were killed in Ballykelly. Seventeen people—11 soldiers and six civilians—were killed. I gave evidence against the five people who were charged with that crime—five people.
	Does that mean that others who were involved in this appalling atrocity are not being chased vigorously by the Police Service of Northern Ireland and brought to justice?

Dominic Grieve: I have absolutely no evidence to suggest that cases are not being pursued simply because they might be old. That is not the case. Indeed, if that had been the case, Mr Downey would not have been picked up at Gatwick airport.

Lady Hermon: I have enormous regard for the Attorney-General, and this Attorney-General knows perfectly well that the European convention on human rights guarantees an effective remedy for every breach of the rights guaranteed in our convention. I am sure that the Attorney-General and others in the House would agree with me that the right to life is the most important right of all. I am absolutely disgusted, and extremely upset and angry, that we now discover that successive British Governments have secretly, wilfully and intentionally deprived families of an effective remedy when their loved ones have been murdered by the IRA. How this Government can hold their heads up and talk about respect for human rights and the right to life and the rule of law beats me, but I am sure the Attorney-General will assure me and the House with very nice words that in fact that is the case.

Dominic Grieve: I am not sure whether I can use nice words, but I shall do my best to answer the hon. Lady’s question honestly. Had the scheme operated in the way that was intended, then I have to say that I do not think there was any prospect of anyone, relatives or otherwise, being denied justice in relation to anybody who received such a letter. But that is on the basis that the scheme operated properly. It is quite clear that in this case it did not operate properly because Mr Downey should not have been sent this letter. We will have to wait and see whether this is some wider failure, which applies elsewhere, but certainly from the information that I was given when I looked into this matter at the outset, there was a system in place to try to ensure that every nook and corner was looked at before such letters were sent.

John Baron: However it is presented, the recipients of these letters are above the law. That is what this court decision has made clear. Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that a balanced approach will therefore be taken as regards former soldiers serving in Northern Ireland? We have heard that the authorities are already advertising for witnesses in the case of Bloody Sunday. Will he also answer one question that has not been answered so far? Who in the Government authorised these letters?

Dominic Grieve: I disagree that the letters placed the recipients above the law.

John Baron: That is what the court has decided.

Dominic Grieve: No; it has not decided that the letters placed people above the law. If the letters had been correctly sent to recipients against whom there was
	no evidence at the time on which criminal proceedings could be brought against them if they returned to the jurisdiction, they had no possibility of putting them above the law, and as I mentioned, the letters leave open the possibility that if evidence were to come to light implicating such individuals, they could still be prosecuted. The difficulty in the case of Mr Downey was that the evidence against him was already available at the time the letter was sent, which is why he should not have been sent the letter.
	I am not in a position to comment on the position of former soldiers. I simply make the point that the general rules and principles of the rule of law apply, irrespective of who may or may not have committed an offence. But in any event, my own direct responsibilities do not extend to the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland.
	Those are the two points I would wish to make, but I reiterate that these letters did not amount to an amnesty.

Sammy Wilson: Regardless of how the Attorney-General tries to paint this issue, this shoddy, shabby, sleekit, behind-the-door deal is, in effect, seen as an amnesty, and in the case of Downey it has, in effect, been an amnesty. If the Attorney-General wishes to dispel any collusion in this by the current Government, given the fact that he has open to him appeal, judicial review and removal of the letter, will we not see one or all of those actions taken to give assurance to the public that this Government have got no part in the deal that the Labour Government undertook behind the back of this Parliament?

Dominic Grieve: Our prosecutorial services are independent. If the Crown Prosecution Service thought that it was justified in appealing the decision that has led to the stay, it would be wholly within its discretion to decide to do so. It is right that I discussed the matter with the CPS. It was quite clear from that discussion, and indeed I concur with the view, that there was no basis for taking the matter further.

Jesse Norman: Anthony Daly was one of those killed by this bomb. He was a friend of mine, a man I knew well and a great man, and he perished in the service of his Queen and his country. May I ask the Attorney-General, first, what steps have been taken to ensure that safeguards were put in place for these kinds of letters, and have remained in place or been strengthened? Secondly, what measures were taken to discipline the people responsible for issuing this letter, at any level of the chain of authority? Thirdly, what measures will now be taken to ensure that those people make some public apology for what has been done?

Dominic Grieve: I should say first of all that the police have already apologised for what has happened through the Chief Constable of the PSNI, and as I indicated there will be an inquiry by the police ombudsman. I have no doubt that that inquiry will be wide-ranging as to how this problem emerged. I hope that it will be able to provide the best safeguards, linked with the other work that will be done by the Northern Ireland Office and others, to ensure that there is never a repetition of this.

Naomi Long: I, too, extend my thoughts and my sympathies to those who suffered that day in Hyde park and have continued to suffer ever since, and who have suffered again as a result of this shabby and secretive side deal that was done as part of the peace process by Labour. I also want to disabuse Members of the idea that this deal bears any comparison with the early release scheme in the Good Friday agreement, which was voted on by the people of Northern Ireland and accepted by them, as opposed to this deal, which was shabbily driven through behind the backs of even the representatives in this Parliament.
	The Attorney-General has confirmed that 38 letters have been sent since 2010. That is an important date, because it marks the devolution of policing and justice to the Northern Ireland Assembly. This process continued after devolution, yet had profound implications for the work of the Historical Enquiries Team and the Northern Ireland Policing Board, and it continued without the knowledge of the Minister of Justice for Northern Ireland or the Policing Board. Who administered the scheme? Who negotiated with devolved institutions behind the back of the Minister of Justice for Northern Ireland, so that this scheme could continue?

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Lady raises a large number of highly pertinent questions, and I hope she will forgive me if I say that I do not think I am in a position to answer all of them at the Dispatch Box today, particularly because my remit and responsibility in this matter is confined to a number of very specific things.
	The hon. Lady says that she considers the scheme to be a shabby side deal; I am sure that will be noted in this House by those who had cause to develop or operate it. I do not think I can comment further on it than that. She makes the point that it is quite different from the Good Friday agreement, and I have no reason to disagree with her about that; I commented on that myself and said that it is quite distinct. Nevertheless, I come back to the point that I raised before, that my understanding is that it was done with the intention of taking the peace process forward, and done in a way that was not intended to prejudice, first, the rule of law and, secondly, the right of victims and relatives of victims to see justice be done. That was the basis on which it was proceeded with and not on some other shabby basis, as she describes it. However, I have to accept, in the light of what has happened in this case, that while I suppose it might be argued that had the letter never been sent, Mr Downey would never have appeared at Gatwick airport, nevertheless the circumstances of what has happened are very unsatisfactory.

Nigel Mills: Will the Attorney-General confirm whether it would be effective for this Parliament to pass a resolution, or an amendment to a Bill, saying that these letters have no effect and should be ignored by the court in considering staying prosecutions?

Dominic Grieve: The letters were statements of current fact. I do not think that, in themselves, they make any difference to the matter. It would be a matter of debate, on which we could engage, whether the letters could be rescinded, but that is a matter that would have to wait for another day.

David Simpson: I also pay tribute to the families, who will again go through a lot of trauma. Yesterday was a very sad day for British justice. Let us remind ourselves that these on-the-runs were murdering scum who destroyed and ruined lives in Northern Ireland by shooting and bombing. When someone receives a letter saying that there is no longer an interest in them, or that no police force has an interest in them, what do they take from it? It is an amnesty in all but legislation. It is a disgrace and we need a full inquiry into it.

Dominic Grieve: On the issue of a full inquiry, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has noted the hon. Gentleman’s comments. I do not think that I can say more on that.

Robert Buckland: May I associate myself with remarks in support of the victims of this and other appalling crimes that go unpunished? I was not aware that the chief of staff to the then Prime Minister or officials in the Northern Ireland Office had any role in policing or prosecution, and I am amazed that letters are being sent from that part of Government relating to issues that are bound to be referred to in a court of law. Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure me that that manipulation—that misuse of the process—will not recur, and that those who are responsible for prosecution and policing send letters in their own name rather than through Government Departments?

Dominic Grieve: My hon. Friend makes perhaps an important point. It is right to say that the letters were sent on the basis of decisions taken by both the Public Prosecution Service and the PSNI, in the context of Northern Ireland, and if domestic matters elsewhere in the UK were concerned, by their prosecutorial authorities. To that extent, it was an administrative system independently conducted of Ministers; I want to make that quite clear. However, it is also right that, at the end of the process, it was ministerial letters, or letters from officials, that constituted the giving of the information.

Ian Paisley Jnr: This is a sad and sorry affair, which unfortunately is written in the blood of our brave servicemen on the streets of this wonderful city. We should never lose sight of that. However, does the Attorney-General recognise that the case law now established by this case and its outworking has done grievous harm to the rule of law and how it is considered across the whole of the United Kingdom, and will continue to do so unless he takes specific steps to rescind all the letters to all the individuals, and does his best to find fresh factors or new evidence to prosecute—once again—Mr John Downey?

Dominic Grieve: So far as rescinding of the letters is concerned, that is not a matter for me. [Interruption.] No, it is not a matter for me, acting in my capacity; I accept that it could be a matter for Government, but it is not a matter on which I can give such an assurance to the hon. Gentleman.
	On the question of case law, let me make the position quite clear. There is very well-established case law about abuse of process, and cases being stopped on the basis of an abuse of process, particularly in relation to assurances given that an individual might not be prosecuted for
	something, has not just suddenly emerged. It is perfectly well established in our law and indeed is part of our rule of law, for the very good reason that assurances given by public administrations may be binding upon them if they lead somebody to do something to their detriment.
	In this case, as I have made clear, we took the view that there were arguments that could properly be put forward to the court that, although there was an error, it did not amount to an abuse of process and was not justified. The court has taken a different view, but I do not think that one can draw general conclusions about other cases from this case, which falls on its own individual facts.

Rehman Chishti: First, may I applaud the Attorney-General for the way in which he has handled this case by authorising prosecutions? My question relates to what he has just said. If there are other cases with similar circumstances and similar letters, will they still be prosecuted in the light of the judgment and the fact that the Crown Prosecution Service has not challenged that decision?

Dominic Grieve: As I have indicated, all the background facts relating to each letter that has been sent will be checked, and that should disclose whether any error has been made. I want to reiterate the point that if it were to emerge that no other letters contained errors the suggestion that those letters in some way amounted to an amnesty simply cannot be right. They would be mere statements of fact, and of the position that existed at the time at which those letters were written.

Margaret Ritchie: Given yesterday’s announcement in the court system, what assurances can be given to families—who are awaiting justice in relation to the deaths of their loved ones and what happened surrounding those deaths—that they will not face similar revelations about side and shoddy deals?

Dominic Grieve: I hope very much that no one will have to deal with side and shoddy deals. It is a matter of opinion as to whether the process of assurances to the on-the-runs was a proper one to pursue. It is a matter for political debate.

Gareth Johnson: The ending of criminal proceedings against John Downey is deeply disturbing, so will the Attorney-General confirm that while criminal proceedings are preferable and what we all want to see in the House, there should be no bar to civil proceedings against Mr Downey by the victims’ families?

Dominic Grieve: Civil proceedings are for the individuals concerned but, no, the letters do not amount to any sort of bar on civil proceedings.

William McCrea: No one can fully understand the hurt felt by families whose loved ones have been murdered, and sympathy from politicians for families of innocent victims will not be enough to heal that hurt. Indeed, at times, politicians’
	actions can add to that hurt, as in this case. John Downey is believed to have participated in the cold-blooded murder of the innocent. Does a letter signed by a Government official abort the right to justice? Who else has received these letters? For example, have Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness received similar letters? Have soldiers and police officers received similar letters to give them immunity from prosecution, or are these special letters simply for terrorists, gangsters, thugs and murderers? What other dirty deals have been done behind the backs of the people of Northern Ireland and their elected representatives?

Dominic Grieve: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that the hurt of the relatives of victims and, indeed, if they survived, of the victims themselves is a matter of which the House should be well aware. I suspect that it is right to say that there are very few Members who do not know people personally who have been affected by the violence in Northern Ireland. I certainly do.
	As for the hon. Gentleman’s other points, the best course of action, if I may recommend it to him, rather than asking me questions which, in truth, within my responsibility, I cannot answer, is to initiate the things he wishes. There is a wider review as to what has happened, but first he may wish to see what the police ombudsman has to say in the internal inquiry report. Then, of course, the House is a Chamber in which these matters may be debated.

Andrew Turner: Who approved the letter en bloc or individually?

Dominic Grieve: I choose my words to my hon. Friend with care because, over time, the letters may have been approved in slightly different ways. Let us be quite clear: these letters were ultimately the responsibility of the Governments in office at the time at which they were sent. I will not accept the suggestion that it was otherwise. That is a completely distinct issue from that of where mistakes may have been made in the factual analysis before the letter was sent.

Mark Durkan: This is not just about some unsatisfactory circumstances. This is traumatising victims, and it is scandalising the public. The court seems to have been misled into thinking that all parties agreed at Weston Park—that is implicit in the judgment. All parties did not agree at Weston Park, nor did they agree in the submissions that we made to Government papers after Weston Park, and certainly, all parties but Sinn Fein opposed the disgraceful Hain-Adams Bill that purported to give an amnesty through legislation.
	Will the Attorney-General address the implication of a judgment that basically says that even the wrong word of a Government official as part of a secret scheme should trump due process and the transparency of the rule of law? Is there not a danger in allowing that as the going rate for the future, if there is no appeal in this case? As for the status of the letters, could Parliament legislate to rescind or qualify the import of them?

Dominic Grieve: Can I try to deal with both matters in turn? I disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation that the court’s decision is in some way
	an infringement of the rule of law. I recommend, if he wishes, that he read the judgment. Far from its being an undermining of the rule of law, I have to say, while it may be a result with which I am uncomfortable and would hope that it might have been otherwise, it is actually an upholding of the principles of the rule of law, even when it has an outcome that we may find extremely uncomfortable, because it emphasises the fairness at the heart of our criminal justice system. As for the other matters that the hon. Gentleman raised, it seems to me that they are matters, as I said earlier, for wider debate.

Michael Ellis: Having worked in the criminal justice system for over 15 years, and having dealt with applications to stay prosecutions, this strikes me as an appalling travesty of justice. May I press my right hon. and learned Friend about the prospect for an appeal? Stays of prosecutions and stays of proceedings can be reversed by the Court of Appeal. These things are open to different interpretations by different judicial persons. The terminology in the letter might possibly be open to an alternative interpretation, and the source of the letter is questionable as not having come ostensibly from a prosecutorial authority. Will he not reconsider the possibility of an appeal to the Court of Appeal against this stay?

Dominic Grieve: I have to say to my hon. Friend that, in any event, it is a decision that has been made by the Crown Prosecution Service and me. I have explained the reasoning behind it, and I believe that our decision is the correct one.

Jim Shannon: There is palpable anger and concern about the decision to give John Downey freedom as a result of that letter, and it poses many questions. Four young Ulster Defence Regiment men were killed in Ballydugan in Downpatrick. Eight people were arrested and questioned, then freed. The three IRA men who killed Kenneth Smyth, a sergeant in the UDR, and his best friend, Danny McCormick, in December 1973 have never been tried. An IRA man killed Lexie Cummings in Strabane, and I secured an Adjournment debate on the matter in the Chamber, which was attended by my good friend, my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds). A former Minister of State replied to it, and referred to the HET inquiry. The question is whether the HET even knew that someone was on the run.
	From Strabane to Ballywalter, for both Protestants and Roman Catholics, the anger is real and makes us all wonder just how many of those involved in these murder
	cases that I have mentioned and others wander around with a bit of paper, which is their passport to freedom, while families and loved ones grieve. Will the HET and the PSNI be given the details of 200 names for inquiries that they have yet to carry out?

Dominic Grieve: The starting point, I think, will be the inquiry carried out by the PSNI and the ombudsman. I hope that that will enable the facts to be established, and will enable some reassurance to be provided—or not, as the case may be—as to whether there are other examples of errors that have been made in these cases. I come back to the point that, on the basis that there were no other errors made, it is quite clear to me that no individual has acquired any immunity from being proceeded against for crimes that they might have committed during the course of the troubles.

Guy Opperman: In my 15 years at the Bar I prosecuted or defended in well over 50 abuse of process claims, and I regret to have to inform the House that very occasionally such mistakes take place. Although my heart goes out to the victims and their families, and while that is clearly a travesty, it occasionally takes place. I entirely endorse the Attorney-General’s approach on that point, but does this case not show that a review by the United Kingdom Government of such sensitive cases is now required, whether in the Northern Ireland context or for other conflicts, by independent counsel, so that such a travesty does not occur again?

Dominic Grieve: My hon. Friend makes a perfectly good point, and I would hope—obviously, I cannot predict exactly how the matter will unfold—that as a result of the PSNI’s inquiry there will be a wide-ranging review of not only how the letters were sent, but whether anything else needs to be done in that respect.

Andrew Stephenson: If issuing the letters was not part of any legislation that went through this House, what law gave the Government of the day, the current Government or any officials the right to issue them in the first place?

Dominic Grieve: I certainly accept that what happened was unusual, but I do not think that there was anything unlawful—I have made this point repeatedly—in indicating to a person that they were not sought and that there was no evidence against them in respect of any offences. If my hon. Friend analyses the information, he will understand why that is the case.

Points of Order

John Baron: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not often raise points of order, as you know, but I seek your guidance briefly. We have just had an urgent question in which the Attorney-General was asked directly who first authorised those letters, but we have not yet had an answer. How best could we go about gaining one?

Dominic Grieve: rose—

Mr Speaker: I am happy to offer the hon. Gentleman a response, but if the Attorney-General wishes to speak at this stage he is most welcome to do so.

Dominic Grieve: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I try to pick my words with care so that the House is in no way misled. I am sure that the information can be supplied to my hon. Friend. I indicated that the letters were the collective acts of Government. It may be that we can go even further and identify who sent the letters, if they were Ministers. That is the proper answer to give. It was not the intention to try to conceal that information from him in any way.

Mr Speaker: We are grateful to the Attorney-General. I was simply going to advise the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) that these matters can of course always be the subject of further questioning. I know from experience that he is as tenacious in the Chamber as I have found him to be on the tennis court over the years, so I see no reason why he will not pursue these matters if he is so inclined.

Sheila Gilmore: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Have you received any notice from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions that he intends to come to the House to make a statement on his Department’s decision to suspend reassessments of employment and support allowance claimants because his assessors cannot cope with the volume? His Ministers made no mention of that during oral questions on Monday, despite knowing that it had happened. Many applicants are faced with unacceptable delays and want to know what is happening.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order, but the short answer to her question is that I have received no notification of any intention on the part of the Secretary of State to make a statement. I made an observation a moment ago about tenacity in respect of the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) and, from my experience, am sure that it applies with equal force to the hon. Lady.

Debbie Abrahams: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 20 November the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), appeared before the Work and Pensions Committee. When I questioned her on inappropriate social security sanctions, she agreed to an independent review being undertaken “on how sanctions in the duration are working”. I subsequently wrote to her and received a letter on 1 February expanding on what she intended to do. However, I have received yet another letter that calls into question whether the independent review on sanctions will now take place. I am extremely concerned that she is reneging on her original commitment made to the Committee and to me in writing. I seek your guidance on how best to hold the Department and the Minister to account.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her attempted point of order. I think that it is fair to say that, on the strength of what I have heard, although the matter is of extreme concern to her, nothing disorderly has occurred. As the Minister is present, she is free to respond from the Dispatch Box if she so wishes, although she is under no obligation.

Esther McVey: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I did indeed reply to the hon. Lady. I know that she has tried to extend the commitment to an independent review. We said that we would monitor and review, and we currently have replies coming back in relation to a review by Matt Oakley. I know that that is the correct reply and that she has received several replies. I hope that that is the matter closed for the time being.

Mr Speaker: I thank the Minister for what she has said. The issue has been aired and I know that Members will accept that we cannot have a wider debate on it now.

Domestic Violence (Legal Framework)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Elfyn Llwyd: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the investigation of allegations of domestic violence, for duties on the police in respect of domestic violence, for risk assessment and training in connection with related criminal proceedings in England and Wales; and for connected purposes.
	In March 2013, a new cross-government definition of domestic violence was adopted. It defines domestic violence as
	“any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive, threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are, or have been, intimate partners or family members regardless of gender or sexuality. The abuse can encompass, but is not limited to: psychological; physical; sexual; financial; and emotional”
	harm. At present, not all those behaviours are criminal offences, meaning that there are gaps in the current law that are failing victims of domestic violence. Perpetrators are thus able to abuse their partners without facing arrest for that behaviour.
	The principal gap in current legislative provisions is that coercive control is not considered an offence in the law of England and Wales. In the Government’s definition, coercive control is defined as
	“an act or a pattern of acts of assault, threats, humiliation and intimidation or other abuse that is used to harm, punish, or frighten their victim.”
	That is not currently a legal definition. The Bill I am seeking to introduce today would therefore give the Government’s definition of domestic violence statutory underpinning, meaning that a perpetrator could be arrested for an incident or pattern of incidents of abusive behaviour encompassing, but not limited to, those provided for in the Government’s definition.
	The Bill would also provide that a court should request a pre-sentence report prior to sentencing and would give the option for courts to rule that a perpetrator must attend a domestic violence programme when in prison. If found guilty, an offender would be liable, on summary conviction, to serve a community order or up to 12 months in prison, while an offender on conviction on indictment for more serious circumstances could face up to 14 years in prison.
	Domestic violence is pervasive in our society. Every minute, police across the country will receive a domestic violence-related call. In 2011-12 there were 2 million victims of domestic abuse in the UK, with 7% of women reporting that they had suffered domestic abuse in the last year. Two out of every three incidents reported to the police are reported by victims who have suffered more than one incident of abuse. Women, on average, report abusive behaviour to the police only after they have suffered at least 30 incidents of abuse. Crime data released by the Office for National Statistics have revealed that reports of domestic violence increased by 2.5% in England and Wales last year, with 838,026 cases in 2012-13.
	Those are not trivial incidents. However, according to Women’s Aid, in the five years up to 2011 only 6.5% of domestic violence incidents reported to the police resulted
	in a conviction. Every week, two women are killed by a partner or ex-partner. Keir Starmer, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, has said that each domestic violence homicide costs the state £1.3 million, quite apart from the obvious personal and family suffering. In 2008 the physical and mental health care of abused women cost the NHS a staggering £1.7 billion.
	Anyone can become a victim of domestic violence, regardless of financial means or cultural background, and we therefore need to see a fundamental change in the way in which allegations of domestic violence are treated by the police. I certainly do not think that changing the law, by and of itself, will solve this, but it will go some way towards emphasising the prevalence of this behaviour and its impact on victims.
	As I said, the absence of an offence of coercive control is a contributing factor to the low rates of reporting, arrests and convictions in domestic violence cases. At present, our criminal system is perhaps too focused on the physical evidence of violent crimes committed against a victim. Coercive control, on the other hand, does not leave scars or bruises, but is every bit as debilitating. That is why I am concerned with securing greater redress for the predominantly female victims of domestic violence; they can be male as well, of course. From 2011 to 2012, I had the privilege of chairing an independent parliamentary inquiry into reforming the law on stalking, which resulted in new offences of stalking being introduced in March 2012. Inasmuch as it focuses on the psychological impact of a non-physical crime on a victim, the new section 4A offence of stalking involves putting someone in serious alarm or distress. That was pioneering, and it has formed the basis of my recommendations in the Bill surrounding the criminalising of coercive control.
	I would suggest that defining a crime in respect of its impact on its victim is the pattern that should be followed in this regard. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that several police forces are choosing not to make use of the more serious section 4A offence of stalking. Regrettably, the vast majority of police forces have yet to implement training in the new stalking laws for all officers. Having said that, I am pleased to note that the latest figures are more encouraging. In the year ending in December 2013, 566 alleged perpetrators reached the first stage in court, of whom 144 were charged with the more serious section 4A offence. Were any new offences relating to domestic violence introduced, it would of course be crucial that the police and the Crown Prosecution Service were made to undergo training in the realities of domestic violence cases and, crucially, the dynamics of abuse. That is why the Bill would place a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that training is given to criminal justice professionals in any new legislation covering domestic violence. Police would also have a duty to develop and implement domestic violence policies that encouraged the arrest and charging of perpetrators and made investigation of complaints a priority.
	In recent months, there has been a great deal of discussion about the need for a more victims-focused justice system, and that is right. Indeed, Keir Starmer has called for a victims’ law—a call that I and many others in this House, I am sure, wholeheartedly support. I believe that any new legislation would need to be informed by the experience of victims. Next week, a
	coalition of organisations in the domestic violence sector, including Paladin, Women’s Aid and the Sara Charlton Charitable Foundation, will launch, as part of a wider campaign, a sector survey and a victims’ survey, both of which seek to identify gaps in the current legislation surrounding domestic violence. I hope that in the coming months the Government will listen to the findings of those surveys and act on them accordingly.
	My Bill is only a starting point for discussions on this topic. It is a working draft, if you will, which I hope will ignite a debate in this place—and beyond, of course—about the changes that need to occur to give greater protection to victims of domestic violence and to ensure that perpetrators of this offence are made to answer properly for their behaviour. I extend my thanks to the Justice Unions Parliamentary Group and to the National Association of Probation Officers for sponsoring the Bill in its current form. I also thank the Members from all parties who have lent their support to the Bill, several of whom are present in the Chamber today. The fact that the Bill has received such cross-party support is really indicative of the appetite for reform that exists in this place.
	I end by emphasising that the views of victims must inform whatever changes take place. It is they, after all, whom we are trying to protect, and it is for them that these changes need to occur.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Mr Elfyn Llwyd, Mr Robert Buckland, Sandra Osborne, Mrs Cheryl Gillan, Mr John Leech, Sir Bob Russell, John McDonnell, Sir Edward Garnier, Caroline Lucas, Ms Margaret Ritchie, Jeremy Corbyn and Hywel Williams present the Bill.
	Mr Elfyn Llwyd accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 June and to be printed (Bill 176).

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[Un-allotted day]

Housing Benefit

Lindsay Hoyle: We now come to the Opposition business, beginning with the prayer against the housing benefit regulations of 2014 in the name of the Leader of the official Opposition. The debate is limited to 90 minutes under Standing Order No. 16(1). I remind Back Benchers that there will be a six-minute time limit on their speeches.

Rachel Reeves: I beg to move,
	That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Housing Benefit (Transitional Provisions) (Amendment) Regulations 2014 (S.I., 2014, No. 212), dated 4 February 2014, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5 February, be annulled.
	The motion also stands in the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), the hon. Members for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) and others.
	Let me set out our reasons for calling this debate and forcing this vote today, and the circumstances that have brought us to this position. The matter before us takes us to the heart of this Government’s shabby and shameful record. By statutory instrument, the Government are trying to close a loophole in the bedroom tax legislation without even understanding how many people are affected by these changes. Instead of trying to close this loophole, the Government should finally try to do the right thing and scrap the bedroom tax altogether. This Government promised that they would not balance the books on the backs of the poorest and most vulnerable, but that is exactly what they are doing, and in such a careless, clumsy and cack-handed way that we see chaos, confusion and uncounted costs piling up around us as they compound the injustice of their policies with utter incompetence in their delivery.
	This Government’s bedroom tax has been a fiasco from the very beginning. More than half a million households have been hit by this mean-minded measure. Two thirds of those affected are disabled and 60,000 are carers. More than 200,000 families with children are affected, many of whom are already below the poverty line and forced, as a result of this tax, to find an average £728 a year extra in rent—equivalent to losing all the child benefit for a second child. So much for the Prime Minister’s moral crusade.

John Hemming: In January, the hon. Lady said that she would place a cap on structural social security spending, so what other cuts in welfare would she make to cover this exemption?

Rachel Reeves: Specifically on the bedroom tax, we have said that we would cancel it by closing the loophole in the shares-for-rights scheme, the bogus self-employment in the construction sector, and the tax credit that the Chancellor gave to hedge funds in the Budget earlier this year. We have been very clear about how we would
	pay for this. In the hon. Gentleman’s local authority of Birmingham, 2,100 households are being affected; I wonder whether he might speak for them and their concerns.
	The implementation of the bedroom tax has been a shambles. Ministers have been unable to explain whether the policy is supposed to reduce overcrowding or whether, as their costings assume, people are expected to remain in their properties. There has been uncertainty and inconsistency, with mixed messages about who is exempt, whether it be parents with children serving in the armed forces, disabled people or carers. The truth is that none of them is exempt. Courts and tribunals have had to devote days to debating the definition of a bedroom, and as the unintended consequences become clear, the uncalculated costs are mounting.

Philip Davies: If this is causing so many problems—the Labour party in Bradford seems to think it is, too—perhaps the hon. Lady could explain why the Labour-dominated social housing provider has continued to build three-bedroom house after three-bedroom house despite claiming that it is not able to rent them out, and why Bradford council, which received £1.2 million in discretionary housing payments, has spent only £350,000 of it in the first six months and has not even bid for any of the extra funding the Government made available. If this is causing so many problems, why has the Labour council abandoned all these people?

Rachel Reeves: Let us see where Bradford is by the end of the financial year, not just six months into it.
	Many of those who are moving because of the bedroom tax are ending up in private rented accommodation which, though smaller, is more expensive. Analysis by the university of York suggests that this could mean the Government paying out £160 million more in housing benefit than had been budgeted for.
	Ministers have also been forced to admit that 35,000 of the disabled people affected have had their homes specially adapted for them with, for example, wheelchair ramps, wider doors, stair lifts and accessible bathrooms. If they are forced to move, it has been estimated that the costs of repeating those adaptations in new properties could be as much as £234 million.
	According to the latest numbers from the National Housing Federation, two thirds of the households hit by the bedroom tax have already fallen into arrears, hitting the finances of the very housing providers we need to be building more homes to deal with overcrowding, and a staggering one in seven of the tenants affected have already received eviction warning letters.

Lilian Greenwood: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that in Nottingham more than 2,000 City Homes tenants are falling into arrears totalling more than £286,000—money that should be spent on refurbishing existing homes and building new ones? The fact that they are in arrears means that even if there were somewhere for them to downsize to, tenancy restrictions would prevent them from doing so.

Rachel Reeves: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. In her local authority area—Nottingham city council—200 people have been wrongly paying the bedroom tax because of this Government’s mistakes.
	She is absolutely right to mention the number of people in her area who are in arrears and the difficulties they will have in moving.
	The eviction warning letters that have gone to so many people raise the threat of millions more being wasted in eviction proceedings and the emergency accommodation that will be needed for those who are made homeless. What a shambles.

Andrea Leadsom: I have great regard for the hon. Lady, but as somebody who used to work at the Bank of England, she will know that this is not a bedroom tax. How does she calculate that saying in effect that people who have a spare bedroom should no longer have it paid for by taxpayers is somehow a tax?

Rachel Reeves: But as the hon. Lady well knows, the reality is that for many of these people it is not a spare bedroom. It is the bedroom that their sons and daughters who serve in the armed forces stay in when they come home; it is the bedroom that their sons and daughters stay in when they are home from university; it is the bedroom that is used to store the dialysis equipment; and it is the bedroom that the carer comes to stay in. These are not spare bedrooms; these are rooms that are needed by many people with disabilities or with children. We can debate whether it is a spare room subsidy or a bedroom tax, but what we do not have to debate is the impact it is having on people. In the hon. Lady’s constituency and mine, and in places across the country, people are suffering because of the decisions this Government are making. The Government should instead do the right thing and cancel the bedroom tax.

Clive Betts: I was talking the other day to Tony Stacey, the chief executive of South Yorkshire housing association, which is a very well run local association in Sheffield and the surrounding areas. He pointed out not only that its arrears are going up, but that it is spending £200,000 more on helping to advise its tenants and on collection. The National Housing Federation says that when those extra costs of arrears and collection are added up nationally, £1.5 billion of development opportunities will be lost as a result of this Government’s welfare reforms.

Rachel Reeves: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. All that money could have been spent on building the houses we need to deal with the overcrowding crisis and other crises of which the Government speak; instead, house building is at its lowest level since the 1920s.
	Let me turn to the loophole. Just when we thought that things could not get any worse, the latest shocking turn in this sad and sorry story was the revelation last month that because the Government could not even draft their own legislation and regulations correctly, many of the households that they had told local authorities should be made to pay the bedroom tax—those who had been in continual receipt of housing benefit for the same residence since 1996—were in fact not covered by the legislation.

Iain Duncan Smith: The hon. Lady referred to the National Housing Federation report and claimed that it said there was cause and effect with regard to the implementation
	of this policy and arrears. May I quote something to her and then hear what she has to say about it? The report actually said that it is
	“difficult…to attribute any observed rise in outstanding arrears since 31st March 2013 to the introduction”
	of the spare room subsidy “alone” and that the situation needs to be monitored. Secondly, it said that the vast majority of housing associations reported no rise in evictions. Would the hon. Lady like to withdraw her previous comments?

Rachel Reeves: The facts speak for themselves: two thirds of the households hit by the bedroom tax have fallen into arrears and councils up and down the country are trying hard not to evict people, because they know it is the wrong thing to do. They are trying to help people and we should welcome that and applaud them for doing the right thing, unlike this Government, who are failing to do the right thing.

John Redwood: Could the hon. Lady explain why Labour in office supported a scheme just like this for private rented sector tenants?

Rachel Reeves: The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that this scheme is retrospective in a way that the scheme for the private sector was not. The people affected by this loophole have been living in their properties since 1996. They thought they had a secure and permanent tenancy, but it turns out that they do not, because they cannot afford to live in the home they have lived in for, in some cases, their whole lives.

Iain Duncan Smith: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. You are both up at the same time. Is the hon. Lady giving way?

Rachel Reeves: I have already given way to the Secretary of State.

Iain Duncan Smith: On a point of clarification.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. There can be only one person on their feet at a time. It is up to Rachel Reeves whether she wants to give way to the Secretary of State. She has given way to him once already and it is for her to judge whether she will do so again.

Rachel Reeves: I shall not give way to the Secretary of State, because he will have a chance to respond in a few minutes’ and I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
	Let us take a moment to reflect on what this means. The Government have been telling local authorities to take housing benefit away from people who were in fact legally entitled to it all along. Most of these people were already in vulnerable positions and will have been pushed even further into severe hardship as a result of this Government’s errors.
	Let us look at a few examples. A widower in Staffordshire suffering from mental health problems told of the sacrifices he had to make to find the extra £14 a week he needed to stay in his home. A 56-year-old woman from Rotherham, who receives support for health-related problems, has had to pay more than £700 in extra rent, which we now know was unlawful. In Greater Manchester, a grandmother
	who looks after her granddaughter, has been diagnosed with depression and anxiety and who paid £200 in additional rent as a result of the bedroom tax fell into arrears and was threatened with eviction from the home she has lived in for 26 years. These people and many like them are now due a rebate, but nothing will compensate for the distress they have been caused or the time and money that the council will have to spend sorting out the mess this Government have caused. And now the Government want to apply the bedroom tax again to these people and thousands of others like them.

Sandra Osborne: How does my hon. Friend think people will feel when they have the relief of finding out that they are exempt from the bedroom tax, only to then be told that the Government are breaking their necks to close the loophole?

Rachel Reeves: Today is our only opportunity to stop the Government closing the loophole, and to urge them to cancel the bedroom tax altogether. We have a chance this afternoon to walk through the Lobbies and either to stand up for our constituents or to stand against them, as this Government have done repeatedly.
	Many of the people who have wrongly paid the bedroom tax have already been forced to move and have fallen into arrears with their rent. Because many local authorities do not have electronic records back to 1996 to allow them easily to identify cases that meet the relevant criteria, they have been forced to spend time and money on manual trawls through paper files to begin to sort out this huge mess. What a waste of time and money, and what a mess caused by this Government’s incompetence. Councils up and down this country have been put in an impossible position, and people in need have been put through needless anxiety and uncertainty. As I have said, money that could have been spent on building houses has been spent on having to sort out this mess. It beggars belief that like universal credit—another of the Government’s flagship welfare reforms—this policy has become mired in chaos, confusion and spiralling costs.

Sharon Hodgson: My hon. Friend is making a magnificent opening speech. Does she agree that we will find that the bedroom tax is costing rather than saving the Exchequer money?

Rachel Reeves: Closing the loophole will indeed cost a huge amount of money—borne by local authorities that will have to do the work to sort out this mess.
	Even as they seek to close this loophole, the Government do not have any understanding of the number of people affected by it. We asked Ministers on the Floor of the House to tell us how many people have been unlawfully charged the bedroom tax as a result of the loophole. On 13 January, the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), who has responsibility for employment, told us in a written answer:
	“This information is not available.”—[Official Report, 13 January 2014; Vol. 573, c. 449W.]
	On the very same day, the Secretary of State told us in this House that
	“the number is likely to be between 3,000 and 5,000”.—[Official Report, 13 January 2014; Vol. 573, c. 577.]
	The next day, Lord Freud, the Minister for welfare reform, said in another place that
	“the numbers involved in this anomaly are small and the amounts are modest.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 January 2014; Vol. 751, c. 106.]
	At oral questions this week, the Secretary of State told me that
	“some 5,000 people may be affected.”—[Official Report, 24 February 2014; Vol. 576, c. 19.]

Mark Lazarowicz: If 5,000 people were affected across the UK, I would expect about 50 people to be affected in Edinburgh. So far, the council has identified at least 113, and others in housing associations may be affected as well. I am sure that the situation is even worse in other places. Does my hon. Friend accept that as well as the extra cost and waste of money caused by the bureaucratic chaos, many people will apply for and get discretionary housing payments, so the savings to the Government, if there are any, are ultimately likely to be minimal? Why do they not just drop the entire tax completely?

Rachel Reeves: That is what we are calling on the Government to do today—to scrap the bedroom tax altogether.
	We had no idea of the numbers affected and the Government clearly did not have a clue, so we asked the question that they should have asked: we asked local authorities how many people have been affected. Of 378 local authorities, 197 have now responded, including Birmingham city council, where 2,100 households are affected, Cardiff with 220 and Glasgow with 913, as well as Tory local authorities, such as Cheshire West and Chester council, where 275 households are affected, Tory Peterborough with 200 and Tory Wandsworth with 234—the list goes on. In total, our replies so far suggest that 21,655 households have been affected. That is on the basis of responses from barely half the councils, while many of them have said that they cannot give complete answers that include housing association tenants. It is therefore already clear that not only have this Government made a complete mess of their own policy, but they do not even have a clue how many people are affected by the loophole.
	The Government have responded to this fiasco by scrambling to cover up their own mistake. They introduced a statutory instrument to close a loophole in their own legislation, without even giving this House an opportunity to scrutinise and debate it; it is only through this Opposition day that we can have a vote, which is why we called this debate today.
	The bedroom tax was misconceived from the start, and it has been incompetently executed every step of the way. The chaos, confusion and extra costs are mounting, with the heaviest price being paid by the poorest and most vulnerable. The Government should scrap the bedroom tax today, but instead they are making it apply to an extra 40,000 households. If this Government will not scrap the bedroom tax, the next Labour Government will do so.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call Mr Peter Lilley to make a six-minute speech.

Peter Lilley: As the Secretary of State responsible for introducing the regulations in 1996, which interacted in an unforeseen way with the regulations last year, I must seek the House’s indulgence at not having recalled the detail of their text and drawn any possible problem to the attention of my successor. However, I assure the House that there was no intention of granting any long-term relief from a change of policy that I envisaged introducing if we had been re-elected and I had remained Secretary of State.

Clive Efford: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Lilley: I will give way not at the moment.
	The problem that we face is a huge shortage of housing. We have 1.85 million people on council waiting lists, up 800,000 since 1997. That should be no surprise, given that the previous Government allowed the population to increase by 3 million during that period, with virtually no addition to the housing stock.
	The symptom of such a shortage is overcrowding—a word which did not pass the lips of the Opposition spokesman in her speech. During my period as a Member of Parliament, many people have come to my surgery to seek help about a change in social housing. Overwhelmingly, they have been people living in overcrowded accommodation who want a bigger property and seek to move out of a one or two-bedroom property. I have therefore been surprised by the general approach of Opposition Members and by some of the media in saying that no one wants to move out of small properties into big ones and that there are therefore no small properties to be moved into by those affected by the removal of the spare room subsidy.
	By chance, I bumped into an old friend who is now the chairman of an organisation called HomeSwapper. Some 80% of local authorities belong to it, and hundreds of thousands of tenants have registered on it that they want to swap.

Sheila Gilmore: With all due respect to the right hon. Gentleman, the problem with his presentation is that the Government expect to make a fairly substantial saving of some £500,000—they will not actually make it—from people not being able to move. What is the real aim of the policy: is it about people moving, or about trying to extract money from them?

Peter Lilley: The policy is about making better use of a housing stock that is in very short supply.
	My friend pointed out that hundreds of thousands of people are registered: last year, about 40,000 swaps were arranged; this year, the number arranged on the site has increased by 23%. I went to my local authority to find out its figures. Some 500 or more people registered as council tenants in St Albans are seeking to move, of whom 260 are seeking larger properties, while only 62 are seeking to downsize. I therefore ask Opposition Members to go to their local authorities and find out the actual figures.

Chris Bryant: We have.

Peter Lilley: Then the hon. Gentleman will know that nationwide, on HomeSwapper alone, 50,000 people with one-room properties are trying to move to larger properties that are available. It is simply untrue to pretend that such properties are not available.
	I do not want to use up time unnecessarily in this important debate, so I will just draw the attention of the House again to the fact that we are dealing with a massive overcrowding problem resulting from a shortage of property. The Opposition are pretending that the reverse is the case and that we have a large surplus of rooms that we can allow people to have—it would be wonderful if we had an excess of cheaply available property, so that everyone who wanted an extra room could have it, subsidised and free, from the taxpayer—but we are not in that position. When will they wake up to reality, look at the facts and deal with the real social problem that most of us face, which is overcrowding in council and social properties?

Rosie Cooper: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) and the shadow team for giving hon. Members the opportunity to highlight what a farcical, ill-thought-through and shambolically implemented piece of legislation the bedroom tax has turned out to be. The identification of the technical error, to use the polite phrase, is another example of the fundamental failings of the legislation and of why the policy has been an abject failure from the beginning.
	A year ago, I spoke in a Westminster Hall debate on this issue. In the past year, we have found out that the reforms do not encourage mobility in the social rented sector, that they have not strengthened work incentives and that we are not making better use of social housing. In February 2012, the impact assessment exposed the real motivation for the Government’s actions, stating that
	“savings in Housing Benefit expenditure will only be realised in full if social tenants do not seek to move from the homes they are under-occupying”.
	Fundamentally, the legislation has always been about the rhetoric of being tough on welfare spending. The Government want it to appear as though they are getting welfare spending under control. Sadly, it is just empty rhetoric.
	In West Lancashire, only 33 working-age households have transferred to smaller properties and just three tenants have downsized through mutual exchanges, yet more than 1,000 tenants have the under-occupation indicator. Of those, 625 are in arrears, even though 401 of them were in credit or had a nil balance at the beginning of the financial year. In 81 cases, there has been a notice seeking possession against those who had been in credit or had a nil balance on their rents. Those figures are just for the first six months. That shows the speed with which families have been forced into financial turmoil and uncertainty by the bedroom tax.
	West Lancashire borough council has identified 150 council tenants who have been affected by the technical error. That is 150 families who have been pushed to the financial edge unfairly and unnecessarily. We know that that is the case because, in trying to resolve the mess, the council has stated that the situation is complicated by
	those who have claimed discretionary housing payments. In avoiding duplication, the council will have to recover the payments and reconcile them against the tenants’ overpayments. That is what I call a bureaucratic mess, and a very costly one.

Philip Davies: Will the hon. Lady explain why she thinks that a single person on housing benefit, who perhaps does not go to work, should be able to live freely in a three-bedroom property, when a couple who are hard at work and cannot afford such a large property have to pay for that property for them? How can she say that it is fair that people who are working hard and who cannot afford such a large property are paying the costs of single people who do not work at all?

Rosie Cooper: Only a Government Member could begin to pose that question. The Government need to provide the means to make the change. Single people do not necessarily want to sit in a three-bedroom house. They need a property to go to. The Government need to provide the means to enable them to make that change. I will not be taught any lessons by the hon. Gentleman.

Yvonne Fovargue: Does my hon. Friend agree that housing benefit is an in-work benefit, not an out-of-work benefit? To talk about people sitting at home, out of work, on housing benefit is completely out of context.

Rosie Cooper: I absolutely agree with—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I know that you are enthused by the debate, Mr Davies, but it does not help if we have a separate debate going on while a Member is speaking. It would be helpful if we could get through all the speakers. I hope to get everyone in.

Rosie Cooper: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue). I did not hear the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) say that those people were out of work.
	The idea that welfare spending is coming under control is a myth. West Lancashire borough council has stated that its intention is to raise rents by 4.6% from April. That will increase housing benefit payments by £630,000 a year. We are seeing a significant and rapid increase in the council’s arrears. From being in the region of £375,000, they have shot up to nearly £500,000. How is that keeping welfare spending under control? Arrears are increasing across the sector. Social landlords have had to take on additional staff to collect rent and give budgeting advice.
	Let us not forget that the Government have acknowledged that they have made a complete mess by rushing to prop up the housing benefit system using discretionary housing payments. Disabled people and people who need their own bedroom for medical reasons are going cap in hand to prove that they are poor, to get a discretionary housing payment handout. I understand that a large amount of discretionary housing payment is going unspent because the council’s means test is too stringent.
	Some councils, believe it or not, are taking disability living allowance into account when determining whether someone should receive discretionary housing payment, even though the guidance from the Department for
	Work and Pensions states that councils should not do so because it inflates a disabled person’s income unfairly. Disability living allowance is meant to fund additional costs that are due to the claimant’s disability or health issue. It is not meant to fund the additional housing costs resulting from the spare bedroom tax.
	Discretionary housing payments should be awarded for 26 weeks or 52 weeks, but some councils, including West Lancashire borough council, are offering them for only 13 weeks, which leads to more form-filling and bureaucracy.
	There is no escaping the fact that welfare spending has to be addressed. However, the snapshot that I have given of West Lancashire—just one community—shows that the bedroom tax is not the way to do it. The abject failure of this policy is costing taxpayers more and more. Although Ministers are talking tough, they are, as ever, failing to deliver. In their case, talk is not cheap. The only transitional arrangement that we need to discuss is the transitioning of this legislation off the statute book.

John Hemming: This morning, I received an e-mail that says:
	“Hi can you help me, I am in a council flat 1 bed room, I have 2 kids and a partner so that is 4 of us in a 1 bed room flat”.
	I actually received two e-mails, but I have left the other one in my office. We must not forget the people who are in overcrowded accommodation.
	The shadow Secretary of State said a couple of weeks ago that Labour would cap the structural social security budget. She used the word “structural” on the basis that, as unemployment goes up and down, it does not affect the structural deficit, and Labour has said that it will cut the deficit. We have to find the money from somewhere.
	This policy encourages people to make better use of rooms. To give an example from my constituency, a lady who is in a three-bedroom house has arranged for her relatives to join her and give up their private rented accommodation, which was costing the taxpayer £5,000 a year through the welfare budget. Therefore, there is a saving of £5,000 a year and better use is being made of the property. They now have only one TV licence, one water bill, one gas bill and one electricity bill. Financially, it is a far better situation for everyone. We are not having to attack or cut any other benefits. We are able to maintain the value of benefits.
	The shadow Secretary of State said—not in this debate but at the Institute for Public Policy Research—that the Opposition would cap the welfare budget. The difficulty with their position is that they would give an exemption just to those who have been out of work since 1996 and not to people with disabilities. There is no question but that there are people with disabilities who need a spare room. I have managed to get discretionary housing payments for such people. I am pleased that, due to the announcement on DHP for the next two financial years, we should be able to provide it for a longer period. Furthermore, I want the rules to be changed to provide an automatic exemption. I accept that it is difficult to do that. That is why the Department won the case in the Court of Appeal. The Department is working on the detailed regulations.
	This policy encourages better use to be made of accommodation, saves money for the public purse and reduces overcrowding. It also means that we do not have to cut other parts of the welfare budget. The real challenge is how we manage the overall budget.

Debbie Abrahams: In Oldham, 2,048 households are affected by the bedroom tax, with 500 properties suitable for them to move into. Where does the hon. Gentleman suggest they go?

John Hemming: I can talk about Birmingham better than I can about Oldham. In Birmingham, by mid-January roughly a quarter of people in council properties had ceased paying extra rent for a spare room due to changed circumstances—they might have found family members to join them or have downsized. Some 521 households wanted to transfer, but sadly, 380 had arrears, and for some reason the council was blocking them from transferring. I think that that is appalling. Let us suppose somebody is happy to downsize to a flat such as the one I mentioned a moment ago. There may be a four-person family in a one-bedroom flat, and 380 people who want to downsize because of having to pay for the spare room, but the council is blocking that because of arrears. I am told that it is sorting that out, but I still see loads of people in overcrowded situations. I am sure that the situation is similar in Oldham, although I obviously do not have the same figures. I do, however, have figures for discretionary housing payments.

Anne McGuire: Following the advice of the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley), I have checked HomeSwapper in the Birmingham area. I have got to page 20 and I found only five one-bedroom houses. Where are the places for people to downsize to in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency?

John Hemming: I got another one today. They may not be on that website, but they do exist—[Interruption.] They do exist; I have them in my casework files. I have three people living in a council bedsit, and quite a few cases of four people living in a one-bedroom flat. I have written about those cases to the council. I accept that they may not be on a website—I do not deny that—but they do exist. People really do have problems. They have shown me photographs of how they live in overcrowded situations.

Ian Lavery: There is not enough smaller, one-bedroom accommodation for people to move into—that is a fact. The bedroom tax will increase housing benefit—that is a fact. Why does the hon. Gentleman not just admit that this is a merciless attack on the vulnerable, the disabled and those least able to speak up for themselves?

John Hemming: Because none of those things are facts. Lots of people are living in overcrowded situations. I see them at my Saturday advice bureau, and two people wrote to me today. Those people are looking for accommodation.
	The Opposition have said that they want to cap the structural welfare budget, but if they are going to spend more money on providing free rooms for people who do
	not need them, where will they get the money from? Will they cut disability benefits? Today, the Opposition propose to give a special exemption to people who have been on housing benefit since 1996. If they proposed a special exemption, with valid rules, for people with disabilities who needed a spare room and to transfer that money out of the DHP, that would be worth looking at. They are picking the wrong analysis for this.
	I have always managed to succeed for my constituents who needed DHP because they have disabilities and need a spare room. I have never had a problem getting DHP. As of last week, having got extra money from the Government, Birmingham’s DHP budget still contained just over £600,000. Birmingham is managing to spend that money, look after people and protect those with disabilities, and not to exhaust the budget.

Sheila Gilmore: Did the hon. Gentleman—he may have done—support an amendment tabled in the House of Lords and in this place that would have meant at the very least that no one should have their housing benefit cut unless they had refused a reasonable offer of a house?

John Hemming: With the charges for a spare room, it has taken some time to identify those people who are willing to transfer. Discretionary housing payments have been made available to people. I have seen payments for DHP go through. People come and talk to me about their personal problems, and I work to get them resolved. I do not think I voted for that amendment, but I have not checked the records so I do not know. It is important to remember that the quantum of DHP is critical. The Government have recently announced DHP for the next two financial years, and that is how we protect people with disabilities who need a spare room for one reason or another. However, it is not possible to achieve that and give this exemption or that exemption.

Anne Begg: The hon. Gentleman makes great play of saving money, but if it were a perfect world and there were properties to move into, according to the Government’s impact assessment that would not save any money. If people cannot move and they get DHP, that does not save money either. How will all the money be saved unless it is taken from those who have no choice?

John Hemming: I did explain that point, looking at examples of those who take in family members. Cases in Redcar have been cited where, because of the interplay between the non-dependent deduction in housing benefit and the spare room rent, it is now in parents’ financial interests to keep their adult children in the property, which it was not previously. That is a way to reduce the overall cost to the housing benefit budget without reducing quality of life.

Sandra Osborne: I do not know quite how to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), but I will do my best. I will try to be brief because others wish to speak.
	Apparently the bedroom tax is officially known as the social sector size criterion. That says it all about this Government’s attitude to tenants in socially rented housing: they do not have the same right to a stable home environment as everyone else. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has, or has ever had, a spare room in his home, or stayed in one place for a length of time, regarded it as home, and then felt that he was being forced to move. It is not a pleasant feeling.

John Hemming: I have had spare rooms, and I have taken in refugees from Croatia and a refugee from Jersey.

Sandra Osborne: I am sure that is very kind. However, I am a mother and a grandmother. I love my family dearly, but I do not want them to live with me all the time.
	As if by magic, the plan was that thousands of tenants throughout the land would move to mythical smaller properties—they do not exist—freeing up larger properties for overcrowded families, or find an average of £720 a year, which they do not possess. Not a cunning plan, but a cruel, uncaring and illusory plan that has seen more than 4,500 of my constituents suffer. Within months of the bedroom tax being introduced, 62% of my constituents in East Ayrshire council were in arrears, and the figures continue to rise.

Bill Esterson: I wonder whether social landlords in my hon. Friend’s constituency are trying to help people in the same way as One Vision Housing does in Sefton. It states that
	“we are helping tenants to downsize in order to avoid the bedroom tax, however with limited availability of one-bedroom properties it is becoming simply unavoidable.”
	As of November, 4,963 people wanted a one-bedroom property, but just 10 were available. Does my hon. Friend have a similar situation in her constituency, which shows just how unworkable the policy is?

Sandra Osborne: I do indeed, and the policy is putting more pressure on the housing service, not taking it away. I also fear for those who have struggled to pay the bedroom tax, because I know fine well they cannot afford it. I worry about where they are getting the money from, and whether it is pushing them in other directions such as food banks or very high-interest loans. It is not possible for me to over emphasise the fear, concern and anger that the bedroom tax has caused, together with the Atos debacle and the fact that people are being suspended from benefits at the drop of a hat.

Katy Clark: My hon. Friend’s constituency is similar to mine. Is it her experience that the people who come to see her about the bedroom tax are disproportionately the disabled and carers, and does she agree that it is particularly distressing for those groups?

Sandra Osborne: That is one thing that causes a great deal of anger among those affected, and also among the general public in my constituency, who happen to be very caring people. When she sums up the debate, will the Minister confirm whether the Government intend to retain the Scottish welfare fund?
	We are here to talk about the sheer ineffectiveness and shambolic implementation of the bedroom tax. What kind of policy requires mitigation for more than half the people affected? Some 70% of applications have been approved for discretionary payment, with more applications all the time in one of my areas. The revised budget will be fully spent by the end of the year—there is no big surplus, as was inferred earlier.

Mel Stride: What I am not clear about is this: what does the hon. Lady say to the 1.5 million people on the housing waiting list or to the 250,000 people living in overcrowded accommodation—perhaps having to sleep on the floor or on sofas—when her party is advocating a policy that uses taxpayers’ money to provide a surplus room for others?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Long interventions will not help us to get through this debate. There are too many interventions. People should not just come in and intervene; they should enter the debate.

Sandra Osborne: It is of course acceptable that where people wish to downsize they should be helped and incentivised to do so, but they should not be forced to do so. In any case, it is clear that the housing is not available, and that this policy is not working and is not practical.
	It is of course very welcome that we in Scotland have benefited from the decision of the Scottish Government fully to mitigate the bedroom tax, in recognition that it is fundamentally unfair and that people, who are already finding it difficult to make ends meet, are struggling because of it. It will be important for Scottish Members to monitor the detail of how assistance will be given as the proposals in the Scottish Government’s budget are implemented. It is just a pity that it took so long to achieve, because many people have struggled and still are struggling. Some have already moved into private accommodation at exorbitant cost and have lost their long-term home. It is a good example of what devolution can achieve and I commend it to our friends in England.
	Now that we have discovered this loophole, it has emerged that a number of people—those who had been in the same local authority house since January 1996 and been continuously entitled to housing benefit—should not have had their benefit reduced as a result of the bedroom tax. How could this have been allowed to happen with such a sensitive and controversial measure? I am currently in contact with the local authorities that cover my constituency to ensure that the people who qualify for this exemption from the bedroom tax are fully reimbursed. Sixty-eight cases have been identified so far in one council area, so that figure can be at least doubled when taking into account the whole of my constituency. The exemption will be backdated to 1 April 2013, but the Government will be taking steps to remedy the loophole “shortly”. The measure will be reinstated as soon as that happens—talk about raising hopes and then dashing them.
	The whole policy is an absolute mess and a disgrace. It will do nothing to solve the housing problem and it should be abolished immediately.

Heather Wheeler: I want to remind Opposition Members that the ethos behind the spare-room subsidy has been around for a very long
	time. I repeat what I said in an earlier debate: what have Opposition Members been doing to ensure that their councils talk to the Homes and Communities Agency and housing associations about the number of properties they need in their areas? My council, South Derbyshire district council, which I am very proud of, sorted out what the numbers would be; how many units we needed to swap; and what was going to be needed with the discretionary housing payments. We also opened up an early dialogue with all our tenants.

Bill Esterson: Perhaps the hon. Lady can tell me how, overnight, she could expect Sefton council, working with its social landlords, to provide 5,000 one-bedroom properties? That was the number of properties needed. How was that supposed to happen?

Heather Wheeler: That is the whole point: it was not overnight; there was at least two years’ notice. [Laughter.] Opposition Members may laugh, but in two years more than 140 one and two-bedroom units have been built in South Derbyshire. What, my friends, were Opposition Members doing to look after their so-called vulnerable people?

Chris Bryant: I presume that the hon. Lady is going to vote with the Government to close the loophole. I presume she will only do that—or else she would think herself to be cruel—if she knows how many people she will be adding to the list of those affected by the bedroom tax. Does she know that number for her own constituency? Does she know the number for the country? [Interruption.] I do know the number.

Heather Wheeler: I am very glad the hon. Gentleman knows the number for both; I am sure he is going to tell everybody. However, the most important thing today is that there is an anachronism. Opposition Members are living in the old days. When will Opposition Members wake up to see that there is massive overcrowding and that we need a massive new building programme? As ever, they are living in the old days and are doing nothing about looking after the most vulnerable people. The Opposition are living in fantasy land and that will not look after the most vulnerable people. They do not deal with the real problems in society: overcrowding; people who have been waiting and waiting to get decent housing; and people who have been on housing benefit for goodness knows how long because they have been brought up to stay in that sort of society. That is not good enough. That is not the society we want to have in the future. I see those on the Opposition Front Bench hanging their heads in shame. I hope the cameras can get that, because that is the truth of where we are.

Katy Clark: Does the hon. Lady agree that the real problem is that we do not have enough social housing?

Heather Wheeler: In the last two and a half years what conversations has the hon. Lady had with her council? My district council is now building council houses. My Conservative council is building one, two, three and four-bedroom council properties. What have Labour Members been doing?

Iain Duncan Smith: My hon. Friend is in full flow and I think she is magnificent. May I remind her that the answer to that question is that under the previous
	Government the building of social housing fell to its lowest level since the 1920s? Opposition Members talk a lot about it, but they did absolutely nothing for those living in overcrowded accommodation.

Heather Wheeler: That says it all. I know that this is meant to be a 90-minute debate, but I wonder whether the Opposition want to give up now because we are having the most ludicrous conversation. I feel so sorry for the voters and residents who are looked after by people who scream and shout and say that they look after the most vulnerable people in society, but physically do nothing about it.

Sheila Gilmore: rose—

Clive Betts: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am just going to help a little bit. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants to catch my eye, in which case he will not get in at the moment because of how many interventions we have already had. That is how bad it is: we are cutting each other’s speaking times down. That will have to go down to four minutes shortly and some people will drop off the end.

Heather Wheeler: I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) for staying seated. I am sure he will make a magnificent speech in a while.
	I finish by saying that can Opposition Members please have serious conversations with their local housing associations, the Homes and Communities Agency and the big providers—the Legal & Generals, the big insurance companies and the other people who want to invest in big infrastructure? If there is an absolute need for one and two-bedroom rented properties in their constituencies, they should open up those conversations. Legal & General, among other insurance companies, wants to take on long-term rented properties. Please do not have a whinge and a moan in this Chamber. Opposition Members should get out there, do their jobs and see what they are meant to be sorting out for the vulnerable people in their constituencies.

Gerald Kaufman: The speeches we have heard from the Government Benches demonstrate very clearly that there is a Liberal Democrat-Tory world and there is the real world. The issue we are debating is the most blatant example of this Government’s total inability to understand how people live. To them, a spare bedroom is simply an unused sleeping space that must not receive housing benefit, but the many constituency cases that I have needed to deal with show that it is by no means so simple.
	One reason why this cruel tax does disproportionate damage to the disabled is that the so-called spare bedroom is very often used by a non-resident carer. They might not sleep in it every night, but its use is indispensible to the welfare of the disabled person. Arrangements of this and related kinds cannot be categorised by the over-simplistic language of parliamentary draftsmen, let alone the policies of this Government. There are all kinds of other reasons for those rooms, depending on
	individual, family-by-family arrangements, that outsiders cannot begin to understand and that this Government do not wish to try to understand.
	The Government’s simple cure is: “Move to a smaller house.” They must be living in a dream world. Have they never heard of the housing shortage, made much worse by their policies? My constituency has 75,000 electors. In the three or four years that this lot have held office, there have been 340 housing starts in my constituency, which is only 60% of the low national average. In Manchester, under a Labour Government, the council used to build 3,000 new houses a year. Because of Tory cuts—Manchester has been hit harder by this Government’s cuts than any other local authority—Manchester city council can now build none. There is no new social housing at all in my constituency, and private landlords are too often predatory.
	I had a woman come to see me on Saturday who was totally frantic. She lives in a shorthold tenancy, but has been given notice to move at the beginning of April. Not only can she not find any accommodation for herself and her two children, but the freehold owners have sent her the ground rent bill, which is the liability of the landlord, who is evicting her. That is real life in the Gorton constituency. When somebody does manage to get rehoused—such as a constituent who was a victim of the bedroom tax who came to see me the week before—the consequences are so confusing or even catastrophic that they lead to potential eviction from the new home.
	This is real life, not the theorising of the Liberal Democrats—we remember them in Manchester, which is why this year there will be no Liberal Democrats left on the city council—or the Tories. What they are doing—and they are doing it with great calculation, because of its political implications—is transferring tax liability from the better-off, who they hope will vote for them, to the disabled, who will not vote for them. This Government build castles in the air. They do not build houses and they make life hell by causing tragic difficulties for people who are in houses. The Government create misery wherever they go, and the sooner they go, the better.

Caroline Lucas: I am pleased to be able to speak relatively soon after the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler), because there was a sense of breathlessness when we were listening to the complacency and, frankly, arrogance of her comments about the kinds of people I see in my surgeries day in, day out. Those people are suffering partly because there is not enough affordable housing. Nobody is saying that there is enough affordable housing, and all Governments in recent years should have done a lot more. However, the idea that pushing people out of their homes into properties that do not exist is in any way helpful, either in economic terms or for the housing crisis, is deeply misguided.
	At the start of this month I tabled early-day motion 1057 to pray against the statutory instrument that we are opposing in today’s debate. When the Leader of the Opposition came and asked whether he could put his name at the top of the prayer to push the debate forward, I was of course happy to agree. I welcome his support and the continued strong opposition to the
	bedroom tax from colleagues across the smaller parties and, indeed, some senior Liberal Democrats. Many Members of the House are joined in opposition to the Government’s bedroom tax and their attempt to undo a drafting mistake they made when they pushed through this nasty legislation. We know that the legislation is cruel and counter-productive.
	As others have said, the Government’s drafting mistake means that some people are exempt from the charge and should not be made to pay it, but now the Government want to ensure that from March all those people will finally be trapped by the bedroom tax. I hope that Ministers will listen today, because it is not just rhetoric. The strong cross-party opposition to the policy comes from our listening to the people we see in our surgeries. We are not talking about a “spare room subsidy”, or about the taxpayer subsidising the unnecessary luxury of an extra room. In case after case, we see that the rooms are not spare, but essential. As we have heard many times, DWP statistics show that more than two thirds of those affected are likely to be people with disabilities. The tax is pushing disabled people from adapted properties. It is sending people to alien places, away from the support networks they have relied on all their lives.
	The effect of the policy is to turf out the person with severe mental health problems who has been settled for years and is deeply distressed by change, but who perhaps has a tiny box room in their home. They cannot take a lodger because of their unpredictable episodes and they cannot afford the rent because the box room means that their rent has gone up, yet there is no smaller property available locally. I asked Ministers a year ago what was supposed to happen to those people. They did not answer then and they are not answering now.
	This is a policy that springs from a reactionary, anti-benefits narrative that takes no account of people’s real circumstances. In Brighton and Hove, the minority Green administration is doing everything it can with the tiny amount of money given to it to protect people from this Government’s pernicious policy but, as predicted, people are massively struggling. Without even counting housing association tenants, there are 286 council tenants newly in arrears because of the bedroom tax, 199 of whom have a disability.
	As well as being callous and cruel, the bedroom tax is counter-productive. There are simply insufficient smaller properties for people to move to, as the Government have repeatedly been told. People are faced with poverty and debt or with moving into the expensive clutches of the private rented sector, where their housing benefit bills will be even higher. Pushing people from their homes is not saving money and it is not solving the housing crisis either.
	The bottom line is that we have nowhere near enough affordable homes—I would certainly agree with the Government about that. Successive Governments have caused the housing crisis, not the poor people who are now struggling to cope with it. It is not the fault of people who cannot get a job, or of disabled people or people who need overnight care. The crucial problem—this is where the fault lies—is the epic failure of both this coalition and the previous new Labour Administration to build sufficient council housing. The Tories pushed the decimation of the stock with the right to buy, ignoring the right to rent; new Labour tweaked the
	enormous discounts but did not grasp the nettle and build council housing. In 2007-08, for example, only 350 new council homes were built across the country. However, it is deeply unjust to penalise people who are struggling at the bottom of a deeply distorted housing market, over which they have little or no control, for the omissions of previous Governments.
	What do the Government say? Lord Freud called the exemption that we are trying to preserve today an “anomaly” and says that the number of people affected is “small”. That detached language shows how out of touch the Government are. We have heard already from the Opposition Front Bench that the figures are vastly higher than that—at least 20,000 and probably much more, because that figure is based on only council returns so far. What precisely will Ministers do to rectify the injustice done to individuals who have been denied their full benefit entitlement? What about the people who, as a result of the error, have newly fallen into rent arrears, which have negatively affected their credit rating, for example? What about those who have left their homes in response to the tax and given up their security of tenure, when they did not have to pay the tax in the first place? How will they be compensated? The mess made by this mistake is surely yet another reason to scrap this contemptible tax entirely.
	In conclusion, the tax comes from an aloof Government, some of whose members are detached from reality, who simply do not know what is going on and moreover do not care. I hope the regulations are stopped today, because any hon. Member who walks through the Lobby to extend the reach of the bedroom tax will be harming even more people with disabilities, with even more people pushed into debt, forcing more people away from their communities. The only way to clean up this mess is to scrap the entire bedroom tax once and for all.

Lilian Greenwood: Today we are hearing Government Members defend a bad policy that just gets worse: a policy that is hitting thousands of disabled people, causing arrears and debt, and leaving vulnerable families in despair.
	Nearly 5,000 households in Nottingham are affected by the bedroom tax, and the vast majority are tenants of the city’s arm’s length management organisation, Nottingham City Homes. Since the introduction of the tax in April 2013, over 2,000 of those tenants have fallen into arrears totalling more than £250,000, and our ALMO has been forced to spend an additional £300,000 on staff and resources to deal with the extra demands on rent arrears teams. That adds up to more than £500,000 that could and should have been spent on refurbishing or building new homes.
	As we have heard, two thirds of the households affected by the bedroom tax simply cannot find the money to pay their rent, and are accumulating ever-increasing arrears. We have heard heartbreaking stories about how the policy is wrecking lives, contributing to a growing affordable housing crisis, and wasting millions. It must be scrapped.
	The Government pretend that people can downsize, but in reality that is nonsense. People who are in arrears often face tenancy restrictions that bar them from applying
	for new, smaller properties, and in any case there simply are not the homes for them to move to. In my constituency there are just 16 one-bedroom social homes available, and not a single two-bedroom home—in a city where 1,161 tenants are waiting to move to one-bedroom properties, and 1,083 are waiting for two-bedroom properties.
	Most tenants are loth to give up secure social tenancies and downsize to smaller properties in the private sector, and the Government’s projected savings rely on their not doing so. The average social rent for a two-bedroom property in Nottingham is £64.02, but the average private rent for a one-bedroom property is £88.85. Do the maths! If tenants did move, the housing benefit bill would rise substantially.
	The truth is that the Government know that most people cannot afford to pay the bedroom tax. Trapped with nowhere to go and facing an increasing cost of living, more and more poor and vulnerable families in Nottingham are turning to food banks and payday lenders simply to pay for basic essentials such as food, children’s clothing and fuel bills.
	My local homelessness charity, Framework, has been recording the experiences of some of its service users who are affected by the Government’s policy. One of them, who lives in a two-bedroom property, has become disabled and cannot use the stairs, but she cannot move to a one-bedroom, single-floor property because she has rent arrears as a result of the bedroom tax. Another is a 60-year-old man who suffers from agoraphobia and panic attacks and finds new places and changes stressful. He is lucky enough to have a support network of family and friends in his neighbourhood, and, understandably, he does not want to move. Now he has arrears of hundreds of pounds, and could not move even if he wanted to.
	Do Ministers really think that this is the way in which to treat vulnerable people with complex needs? It is clearly not the best way in which to tackle the shortage of larger council homes, or the problem of overcrowding. The latest loophole will add to the burden borne by hard-pressed local authorities, and it could affect as many as 40,000 households, but Ministers continue to claim that it will affect only a few. Ministers ignored social housing providers when they warned that the bedroom tax would be a disaster. How bad do things have to become before they actually start to listen?
	The Government are in utter denial about the impact of their cruel and iniquitous policy. Tory and Liberal Democrat Members arrogantly dismiss those who dare to highlight the damage that it is doing to the lives of our constituents. Well, if they will not do the right thing and scrap it, the next Labour Government will.

Andrea Leadsom: I despair of Opposition Members who first insist on calling the spare room subsidy a tax, and secondly insist that it is utterly unfair to everyone. What they fail to accept is that the previous arrangements were totally unfair to taxpayers and to those in the private rented sector. Opposition Members wish to preserve an old
	system under which the maximum paid by the taxpayer for housing benefit reached £104,000 a year. They need to understand that that was completely untenable.
	Between 2003 and 2012, overcrowding increased from 5% to 7%, leaving hundreds of thousands of people in overcrowded housing and 1.5 million on the housing list. How fair is it to allow people who have more bedrooms than they need to stay in that accommodation, leaving others facing bed-and-breakfast accommodation, homelessness or severe overcrowding?
	Most of the constituents who talk to me about the spare room subsidy talk about their absolute need for more space, not less, for their families. The only person who has ever complained to me about having to move out of his or her home was a lady who said that she had raised three children there. It was a four-bedroom home, and she did not see why she should move out of it now that she was on her own in case they ever wanted to come home for the holidays. Can Opposition Members honestly, in all conscience, support someone remaining in those circumstances, against the 1.5 million people who are on the housing registers? They talk of fairness and of what is right and just, but they are talking nonsense to the people who are footing the bill and to those who have nothing.
	In the 13 years of the last Labour Government, housing benefit rose from £11 billion to £21 billion a year. That is £900 for every household in the country. Is it fair on working families that they should be supporting housing benefit to the tune of £900 per household?
	Let me end by asking Ministers some questions. What more can we, as a Government, do to make constituents aware of the enormous amount in generous discretionary payments that is widely available, and can we do more to promote house swap schemes? Many people talk about the unavailability of smaller properties, but they are talking about empty smaller properties rather than about house swaps. I think that swaps have huge potential, and a great deal of work is being done to promote them in my constituency.
	Can Ministers confirm that discretionary payments will continue throughout 2014 and into 2015? Can they also confirm that the Government have made huge efforts to ensure that new houses are built? Are they still on target for the building of 170,000 new affordable homes by 2015? Finally, can Ministers explain why there was such a big underspend of discretionary payments last year, and what they can do to ensure that councils provide as much help as possible for those who need it?

Eilidh Whiteford: I am pleased to be able to contribute to the debate. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for all that she has done to bring this issue to public attention.
	The loophole in the regulations that we are discussing exposes just how poorly thought through the bedroom tax legislation has been from the start, and affords us a timely opportunity to take stock of how the legislation has been working in practice since its introduction last year. Today’s debate has revealed that the policy was, from the start, nothing more than a cash grab from those on the lowest incomes who were already living in the cheapest houses.
	In Scotland, 80% of the homes affected by the bedroom tax are the homes of people with recognised disabilities, who already have the least choice about where and how they live. There is a broad political consensus in Scotland that the tax is proving to be unworkable, and that it is only harming disadvantaged tenants but damaging councils and local housing associations, undermining social cohesion in our communities, and harming the social fabric as a whole. Under the terms of the Scotland Act 1998 this area of policy is reserved to Westminster, so we have been stuck with Ministers whom we did not elect, imposing a policy for which we did not vote. Nevertheless, Scottish local authorities, the Scottish Government, and our housing associations and advice bureaux have had to mop up the mess over the last 10 months.
	There is now clear evidence that the bedroom tax is costing taxpayers more than it is saving. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has analysed the cost of implementing the policy in relation to its projected savings, and concluded that a policy that was supposed to save about £50 million a year in Scotland is actually costing about £60 million a year to implement. Detailed research undertaken by COSLA with six councils also revealed disturbing trends in the patterns of arrears accruing in the social rented sector. In the first six months of the policy, an additional 31% of tenants affected by the tax were in rent arrears, and many of them had never been in debt before. Squeezing the bedroom tax from people on very low incomes who just cannot afford it is causing huge distress and worry to tenants, including those who are managing to pay, but it also has serious implications for social landlords and for the solvency of housing associations in particular.

Caroline Lucas: The hon. Lady is making a powerful case but does she agree that this is about a lack of affordable housing and, until we address that, the things that we are talking about will not get solved?

Eilidh Whiteford: I agree that the lack of affordable housing is a core issue, but there is also a chronic mismatch between the needs of prospective social tenants and the available housing stock. I have made the point many times in the House that, across Scotland, over 60% of tenants need a one-bedroom property, yet only 23% of the housing stock is one-bedroom size. Even if everyone were to be allocated a home of the requisite size, there are just not enough smaller houses to go around.
	There has been a lot of talk today about the shortage of housing. The Scottish Government have managed to deliver more social housing than any other Administration in the UK, even on a fixed budget—a diminishing budget. It is a matter of political priority. If we understand there is a housing shortage, we need to fix it. There is no excuse.
	Local authorities, housing associations and the Scottish Government have all had to take action to minimise the unwanted side effects of the bedroom tax, not least by topping up the budgets for discretionary housing payments by £20 million in the last year, which is the maximum amount allowed under section 70 of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000, and by this year making available £35 million for discretionary housing payments, which would, in effect, enable councils to mitigate the entire impact of the bedroom tax for everyone
	affected. However, as I have said, this remains a reserved matter, and the Scottish Government have had to request permission from UK Ministers to increase the DHP budget. As far as I am aware, the Deputy First Minister is still awaiting a reply to her letter of January to Lord Freud making that request, so can I press Ministers today to listen to the Scottish Parliament’s view on this matter—a view supported by four parties, including their own coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats—and impress upon their ministerial colleague in the other place to crack on and signal his consent? Frankly, it is a travesty in the 21st century that a democratically elected Parliament has to ask permission from an unelected peer to spend its own people’s money. I hope that that is one anachronism that we can put right this September.
	The money we are having to find to do that in Scotland must be found from budgets for other devolved policy areas, but given the substantial knock-on costs the policy is having for devolved institutions and housing associations, the democratic consensus around the issue and the distress it is causing to disadvantaged people, I do not think standing aside is an option. Although today we are debating a technicality, it is a technicality that exposes deeper flaws in the housing benefit legislation and exposes the warped values and misconceptions that have informed it.
	From the start, the bedroom tax was unfair and ill conceived. Now, nearly a year on, it is not only failing to meet its own policy objectives, but creating needless bureaucracy and displacing large costs on to other parts of the public sector. A policy that costs the public purse more than it saves is a bad policy. A policy that harms our most disadvantaged citizens is a bad policy. A policy with big technical loopholes is a bad policy. I urge the Government to do the right thing and abandon the policy today.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call Sheila Gilmore. If you could end your speech at five minutes past 3 so the Minister may begin her response then, that will be helpful.

Sheila Gilmore: There is a fundamental incoherence at the heart of this whole policy. We have heard impassioned pleas from some members on the Government Benches about how much they care for people in overcrowded housing and that this is a policy to help with that situation, but at the same time it is clear from the Government’s own financial projections that they expected to make savings from people not being able to move and having to pay the extra. That is the fundamental inconsistency. The savings are going to be outweighed not just by discretionary housing payments but by the cost of administering them, of giving people additional advice and support and of employing more staff to do so. All that is being shouldered by local authorities and housing associations, and it has to be taken into account when looking at overall public spending.
	DHPs do not make up for the fact that many people are suffering. These are real people. A constituent of mine was a cancer sufferer; he is in recovery. He has three children whom he wants to have with him at weekends. One is autistic—where is he supposed to put that child in a one-bedroom property? Is he not allowed
	to have a life? He did not qualify for DHPs first time around because his DLA was taken into account, so it is not a straightforward case of saying “People will be all right, even those who are disabled.” Why should people be made to make repeated applications instead of being exempted? The Prime Minister at times seems to think that those people are already exempted, but he is clearly wrong.
	I am sorry to tell the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) that many of us are deeply concerned about housing in our areas. New houses have been built in my city, but this week only 23 one-bedroom properties are available, of which five are sheltered accommodation. They are not suitable for people in this position. The houses just are not there at the moment, so why should people pay a tax, which is what it is, until that is sorted out?

Peter Lilley: Will the hon. Lady clarify—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I think the hon. Lady has finished her speech, which is helpful because I am sure Members would like to hear from the Minister as well.

Esther McVey: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	It may be helpful if I explain what the Opposition are seeking to annul. The instrument amends paragraph 4 of schedule 3 to the Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (Consequential Provisions) Regulations 2006, which provides for transitional protection for certain housing benefit claimants. The amendment removes the transitional protection from social sector tenants such that their housing benefit will be determined using regulation A13 of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006, which sets out the maximum rent in the social sector.
	The amendment is required to close a loophole that derives from a very narrow set of regulations that date back to 1996. Changes at that time introduced the local reference rent rules and those regulations were intended to provide transitional protection for existing claimants as the new rules came into force.
	The local reference rent rules only applied to those renting in the private rented sector, so the transitional protection was only ever intended to support them—the vast majority of them pensioners—not social sector tenants who were unaffected. With hindsight, this protection could have been time limited. Because it was not, 17 years later the protection is now being applied in a way that was never intended but is possible, which is resulting in claimants being exempted from the spare room subsidy. Thankfully, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley), who was the Secretary of State at the time, said earlier that that was never meant to be the case.
	If the motion’s supporters have their way, they will maintain transitional protection that was put in place for something that no longer applies, in order to exempt a group of benefit claimants from a completely different policy 17 years later. At best that is misguided. When we were looking to exempt a set of people, why would we have chosen that set of people?

John Healey: Will the Minister give way?

Esther McVey: Not just yet. I will finish what I am saying.
	Why would that group have been exempted? Why would preferential treatment have been given to a set of people who had been on benefits for 17 years? When we have put protection in place, we have sought easement for four sets of people. Foster carers are eligible for an additional bedroom. Parents who have adult children in the armed forces who usually live with them and who could be away deployed on operations but come back to their room would be exempted. Disabled claimants or their partners who require a visiting overnight carer are eligible for an extra room. Severely disabled children who would ordinarily be expected to share a room but who could not would be exempted. We have therefore set out who would require easement. That should not be provided, through some loophole, for people who were never meant to be exempted. It was never intended that people who had been on benefits for 17 years should be exempted.

John Healey: The Minister has used the words “misguided” and “loophole”. She told me in answer to a parliamentary question in January that
	“we estimate the numbers affected are likely to be fewer than 5,000”.—[Official Report, 14 January 2014; Vol. 573, c. 522W.]
	In Rotherham and Barnsley, however, one in 14 of all housing benefit claimants have been wrongly hit by the bedroom tax. That suggests that there are nearly 50,000 such claimants across the country. Will she now admit that Ministers have massively underestimated the numbers who have been hit and massively underplayed the difficulties and distress that have been caused?

Esther McVey: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to answer that question. I looked into the freedom of information request and the numbers that had been obtained, and I was assured categorically that there was no way the Opposition’s figures could add up regarding claimants who were continuously on benefits while remaining in the same accommodation. When I spoke to various housing associations and local authorities, they were somewhat surprised, because they had given the numbers of people who might be affected and the numbers of cases they were still investigating, but the Opposition had added them together to try to multiply the numbers. When we answered the question on the numbers, the figure we gave at that time—5,000—was the best we could do. It is incorrect to say that the Opposition have those numbers; that is not the case.

Chris Bryant: Will the Minister give way?

Esther McVey: I will indeed give way, to hear some more information sprung from nowhere. Go on!

Chris Bryant: No, this is not information sprung from nowhere; it is direct questions to local authorities under the freedom of information legislation. A classic instance of this is to be found in the Minister’s own backyard: there are 600 cases in the Wirral. If she does not know the numbers—which is effectively what she is saying—is she not simply seeking to change the law on the basis of cruelty?

Esther McVey: I shall let that last comment pass, because it is completely inaccurate and should not be responded to. Let me give the House some of the answers to the FOI request. Local authorities did have some cases, but the number that they were still investigating was nearly double that amount. Those two amounts have been added together for the purpose of this argument, however, and that is not correct. It is factually misleading—[Interruption.] That example was from St Helens.
	Local authorities said that the numbers had not yet been verified. Some of the figures given by the Opposition were 130% higher than the number already affected, and some of the people involved might be pensioners, who would not be affected by the measure. Such cases have not been thoroughly investigated because there had been a computer system change and those numbers were not available straight away; they would have had to be manually checked throughout the country.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Esther McVey: I will carry on. More information has been handed out by the Opposition and, as always, they are not very good with their numbers—hence the problem that we now find ourselves with
	. Why are we bringing forward this policy? We are looking at how to make the best use of social housing. We know that more than 400,000 people are living in overcrowded accommodation, and that 2 million people are on waiting lists. At the same time, there is overcapacity equating to approximately 1 million spare rooms in other houses. How do we deal with this? It is not an easy issue that we have been left with, and we are having to make difficult decisions in order to get it right. We know what we cannot do: we cannot have a housing bill that doubles over 10 years, and we cannot have more and more people on waiting lists and living in overcrowded accommodation.
	I was intrigued by the fact that it was only Members on the Government Benches who talked about people in overcrowded accommodation. They included my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley). Only those on this side of the House seemed to care about the people who are struggling and are on a housing waiting list. The reason that we are putting these measures in place is that we want to ensure we make the best use of our social housing. At the same time, we are building more affordable housing: there will be 177,000 more affordable homes by 2015, with £4.5 billion being spent.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden talked about home exchanges. He said that there were 56,000 one-bedroom homes and 147,000 two-bedroom homes available on HomeSwapper, and that 66% of the 233,000 homes available for home exchange were one and two-bedroom properties. Of course we are not expecting homes to be vacant at the moment, waiting for people to move in We need to find out who wants to move, how they are going to move, and how we do the swaps.
	What is most unfortunate is that when we knew this policy was coming into being—that was four years ago and it has been in place for a year—the Opposition did absolutely nothing. In the year between 2012 and 2013, £11 million was handed back to the Government. The
	Opposition should have been asking, “How can we help people to move? How can we use that money to reduce rent arrears? How can we use that money to help people move into other accommodation?” They did absolutely nothing, digging their heels in; they were not helping those who most needed their support and were ignoring what was coming through. That is shameful, but this is the Opposition who led this country into serious debt and made sure that private debt for individuals went up to £1.5 trillion. Rather than help people out of debt, and help them move to homes they could afford and live within their means, the Labour party allowed them—
	One and a half hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the motion, the Deputy Speaker put the Question (Standing Order No. 16(1)).
	The House divided:

Ayes 253, Noes 304.

Question accordingly negatived.

Jamie Reed: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The details of a written ministerial statement regarding a decision made by the Secretary of State for Health on the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust was released to the media before that statement was laid before the House today. Will you tell us whether that grotesque discourtesy to the people of that area and to Members and colleagues in this House was in fact in order?

Lindsay Hoyle: As the hon. Gentleman knows, Mr Speaker deprecates the premature release of press and Government statements due to be made in this House. The Vote Office received the text of the written ministerial statement at 1.34 today. It was made available to Members as soon as possible. You have made your point, and I am sure that Mr Speaker will look into it.

Flooding

Maria Eagle: I beg to move,
	That this House notes the recent severe weather which has caused widespread and distressing flooding of homes, businesses and farmland; praises the work of communities, the Environment Agency, the Armed Forces, the emergency services and local councils in assisting those affected; calls on the insurance industry to ensure pay-outs are made as quickly as possible; recognises that continued support will be needed for the communities and businesses affected in the months ahead as homes and infrastructure are repaired; acknowledges the clear scientific evidence that climate change is contributing to the increased frequency of severe weather and the consequent risk of flooding; notes the advice from the Committee on Climate Change that current and planned levels of investment are insufficient to manage future flood risk given the increased threat from climate change; calls for further reports on the implementation of the recommendations contained in Sir Michael Pitt’s report into the 2007 floods to be made to Parliament; and supports cross-party talks on the impact of climate change and the funding and policy decisions necessary to mitigate the consequences of more frequent severe weather on communities and the economy.
	For two and a half months, Britain has faced some of the most extreme weather since records began. We have experienced the wettest start to a year, the biggest tidal surges and the highest waves ever recorded. As a consequence, 6,480 homes have been flooded, farms have disappeared under water and businesses have been forced to close. For those who have been forced from their homes or seen their houses stripped of ruined carpets, furniture and possessions, this has been an horrendous experience. The stress of finding alternative accommodation and ensuring that the kids can get to school and that jobs are held down, while cleaning up and battling with insurance companies, will have been the nightmare start to the year that has faced many families.
	The whole House will want to pay tribute to the tireless and ongoing work, over recent weeks, of the armed forces, the fire and rescue services, the police, the Environment Agency and local authority staff. I have seen for myself in Somerset and Cornwall how our public services have done an incredible job in difficult circumstances. They have worked alongside local communities and with the help of many volunteers to keep people safe and minimise the damage to property.
	Governments cannot control the weather, and what the country has experienced in recent weeks has been exceptional. However, communities expect their Government to be prepared for the consequences of severe weather, and when it occurs, they expect a rapid response from the Government and help to arrive swiftly. Sadly, this was not the experience of many communities over Christmas and new year. The Government’s initial response to the floods was too slow and unco-ordinated. For too long, there appeared to be a complete failure to understand the full scale of the situation that was unfolding. I am afraid that that was typified by the belated visit of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to the Somerset levels at the end of January. More than a month after the waters rose and homes and farmland were flooded, he took the decisive step of ordering a report to be on his desk within six weeks.

Edward Garnier: Will the hon. Lady praise the generosity of farmers and hunts, not just in Leicestershire but throughout other parts of England, who have been sending hay, haylage, straw and other types of animal fodder to affected farmers? That has been a huge volunteer effort, and I hope that she will acknowledge it.

Maria Eagle: I am happy to acknowledge the support that has been given in the manner that the right hon. and learned Gentleman sets out to the House.

Richard Ottaway: The hon. Lady said that the Government, or the country, was not properly prepared for the incidents that we faced. If she had come to my constituency, she would have seen that only prompt action by the fire brigade, the Army, the emergency services and the Environment Agency stopped a disaster. It is unfair and unfounded to say that the plans that were put in place and implemented amounted to a lack of preparation.

Maria Eagle: I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says about his experience in his constituency. I did not say that there was no support or preparation, but the Government did not act in the requisite fashion to deal with the seriousness of the situation in many places.

Ben Bradshaw: My hon. Friend is right to talk about the slow and belated but ultimately welcome response. Is not the danger that, now that the national media circus has moved on and the visiting Ministers have gone way, the Somerset levels are still under water and both of our main rail connections from the south-west to the rest of the country are still severed, and likely to be so for several more weeks? We need sustained and comprehensive attention and policies to address flood risk and flood management in the long term.

Maria Eagle: I acknowledge the truth of what my right hon. Friend said. Of course, it is the job of Her Majesty’s Opposition to try to make sure that the Government realise that need as much as we do. I am sure that we will seek to do that.

Richard Benyon: Will the hon. Lady acknowledge that her right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who is sitting next to her, instigated the Pitt review, from which came the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, which this Government have implemented in large measure? Surely, there should be a much more cohesive view across the House that we put in place the gold command structures that the review required and carried out Exercise Watermark precisely for this scenario. Many houses in constituencies such as mine were protected precisely because we followed through those recommendations.

Maria Eagle: I acknowledge that good work was done in the Pitt review to set out what the country needed to do. However, I am not convinced that the Pitt review has been fully implemented. Indeed, the Government laid before the House in, I think, January 2012 what they called a final progress report on the Pitt review, whereas it acknowledges that 46 recommendations––that is half of them––have not yet been implemented. One
	of the things that I would like the Minister to deal with is whether we can have further updates, so that we can be clear about the Government’s view on whether the Pitt review has now been fully implemented.

Chris Ruane: I do not believe that the Pitt review has been properly answered. I have tabled 10 parliamentary questions on its recommendations and intend to table another 84 to flush the issue out. Here are a couple of the answers I have had already:
	“I have made no assessment of local authority leaders’ or chief executives’ effectiveness”.—[Official Report, 13 February 2014; Vol. 575, c. 800W.]
	That was recommended by Pitt, but not implemented.
	“There have been no discussions with the Association of British Insurers or other relevant organisations”. —[Official Report, 12 February 2014; Vol. 575, c. 661W.]
	That was recommended by Pitt, but not implemented. Those are just two of the recommendations that have not been implemented.

Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend makes a strong point and perhaps in due course—either during this debate or thereafter—we can have a better understanding and, I hope, a shared understanding across the House about what has and has not been completed in respect of Pitt.
	For weeks after this crisis arose, Ministers refused to accept the need for additional funding; they refused to accept the serious situation facing many farmers, who had seen their land submerged and their livestock displaced; they refused to accept that the Government had a duty to act regardless of whether official requests from councils had been received; they refused to countenance the mobilisation of the armed forces; they refused to act on council tax, having changed the law to abolish automatic exemptions; and they refused to accept the need to act on insurance payouts. Instead, despite meeting after meeting of Cobra, very little action seemed to result.
	It is clear that that situation was not helped by the confusion about who has been in charge of the Government’s response. It is hardly the Environment Secretary’s fault that he was forced to step back from the front line, and I know that the whole House wishes him well as he continues on his road to recovery. However, we then faced a period of chaos as the Communities Secretary took charge for a few slightly misjudged and disastrous hours, before he was banned from the airwaves. The Defence Secretary was then dispatched to repair all the damage caused by the Communities Secretary’s blundering, and then the Transport Secretary appeared to become the fourth member of the Cabinet to be put in charge of the Government’s response. Then, in the past few days, we have finally seen a blitz of public relations initiatives and some welcome extra money as the Prime Minister, having woken up late to the impact of the severe floods, decided that he had better take charge of the response himself.

Stephen Doughty: On that point, was my hon. Friend also confused, as I was, by the Prime Minister’s visit to Pembrokeshire, when it was not clear whether the funding that he announced there even applied to Wales? Also, will she join me in commending the work of the Welsh Labour Government in protecting flood defences, flood staff and flood funding?

Maria Eagle: I will indeed join my hon. Friend in respect of the latter point. I must also say that I was a little concerned that, for once, the Prime Minister’s reputation for being an expert on PR and spin seemed to have gone a little bit wrong when he turned up in Wales to announce an initiative that did not apply to Wales. Perhaps that will give my hon. Friend a strong argument to go back to the Prime Minister to ask him whether that initiative will now apply to Wales.

Caroline Lucas: I welcome the call in the motion for
	“cross-party talks on the impact of climate change”,
	and I very much hope that the smaller parties will be included in those cross-party talks. Does the hon. Lady agree that protecting UK citizens from the worst of climate change means that we need to leave the vast majority of fossil fuels in the ground and that the last thing we should be doing is exploring for yet more sources of oil and gas, whether or not that includes shale gas?

Maria Eagle: I will say a little about climate change later in my remarks, but the hon. Lady has certainly made her point.
	After the Prime Minister became involved, one by one the measures that had been resisted for weeks have finally been announced: vital assistance from the armed forces; funding to help households, businesses and farms, although much of the detail needs to be clarified; council tax exemptions, after my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition forced a welcome U-turn; and a hastily convened meeting with the insurance industry, although it is far from clear what that meeting has delivered in terms of faster payouts. Those measures should have been put in place when the water levels first rose, at the end of last year.
	A great many questions still need to be answered about the assistance that is available. For example, the Business Secretary has suggested that VAT on flood repairs should be reduced. Perhaps the Communities Secretary can clarify matters and say whether that suggestion is now Government policy, or was it just being floated as part of the Liberal Democrats’ so-called differentiation strategy?
	After the floods of 2007, half of those who were forced to leave their homes were back in them within six months, yet many of those people had to wait much longer for the money needed to sort out the damage. I hope that the Communities Secretary will update the House on what discussions with the insurance industry have led to. In particular, can he say whether the Government agree with the proposal by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition for a new industry standard, because taking 12 months to complete a claim seems far too long?
	There is still a lack of clarity on the time scale for restoring the rail link between Exeter and Newton Abbot, following the collapse at Dawlish. Initially, it was claimed that the work could be completed within six weeks, but now we are told that the line may not reopen until mid-April. With up to £20 million a day being lost by businesses, I hope that the Communities Secretary will provide an update on efforts to achieve an earlier reopening of this vital transport link.
	We have heard nothing from Ministers on what specific steps the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is taking to help our fishing fleets, particularly in the south-west. Many fishermen have been unable to work since Christmas and consequently now face a desperate financial crisis. After two months of no fishing, damaged boats and lost equipment, the Communities Secretary will, I hope, provide some clarity on what help will be available to that vital British industry.
	There are growing concerns about the impact on the tourism industry, which is vital for the economy of the south-west in particular. It is reported that a quarter of all tourism operators have experienced cancellations, and 40% have seen fewer forward bookings during a vital period for organising summer breaks. I hope that the Secretary of State, or the Minister who is responding to the debate, can set out what the Government have done to ensure that people are aware that all parts of Britain are open for business.
	Ministers continue to be silent about whether or not an application is to be made to the European Union solidarity fund. After the 2007 floods, the previous Government successfully secured £110 million as a contribution to the cost of recovery. After the UK special abatement mechanism, the net value is £31 million. Considering that that is more than the total extra money announced for this year, it is surprising that securing that funding does not appear to be a priority. I hope that the Secretary of State can assure the House that some kind of anti-EU political dogma is not standing in the way. We look forward to hearing what he can tell us about what is going on.
	The Government were caught sleeping on the job when the severe weather first hit the country in December, but the roots of this failure go back to the ill-judged decision made by the Government after the 2010 election significantly to reduce the funding available for flood protection. The budget of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs had to be cut, but it is a question of what the priorities ought to be. A decision was made to target the flood defences budget, despite all the evidence that investing in flood defences saves more than it costs.

Henry Smith: rose—

Maria Eagle: I will not give way. I have given way on a number of occasions, and I want to make progress.
	This reckless short-termism is set to cost the country more than the cuts were intended to save. The Pitt review commissioned by Labour after the 2007 floods made it clear that investment in flood protection needed to rise, and by time of the 2010-11 Budget set by Labour, funding had gone up from £500 million a year to £670.1 million, yet by 2011-12, in the first Budget set by the coalition Government, that had been cut to £573 million, which is a reduction of £97 million—a 17% real-terms cut.

Andrew Percy: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Maria Eagle: No, I want to make a little progress.
	The budget has remained the same since then, meaning further significant real-terms cuts, year on year. Taking
	into account the extra funding announced this month, there will still be £64 million less available for flood protection this year than in 2010. The figure is £606 million now, compared with the £670 million available under the previous Government. The chief executive of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Nick Baveystock, said in the past day that this level of spending
	“provided neither the level of investment nor long-term certainty required to improve resilience against flooding... This under-spend has been detrimental to communities, business and infrastructure”.
	The Government’s decision to reduce the commitment to flood protection was a deliberate one. When the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs rewrote his Department’s core list of priorities on taking office, he chose to remove the priority to
	“prepare for and manage risk from flooding.”
	He then stated in front of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that he had ordered civil servants to use his new priorities, which no longer included flood risk, when applying spending reductions within his Department. Ministers, including the Prime Minister, continue to claim that more is being spent on flood protection in this Parliament than in the previous one. In real terms, that is nonsense. Thanks to the complaint from my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) to the UK Statistics Authority, we now have an independent view on the Government’s claims. Andrew Dilnot said:
	“Our analysis...supports the conclusion that the statement ‘over the current spending review period, more is being spent than ever before’ is supported by the statistics if the comparison is made in nominal terms and includes external funding, but is not supported by the statistics if the comparison is made in real terms or if external funding is excluded.”
	That is categorical, so I hope that the Communities Secretary will apologise on behalf of the Prime Minister and all those Ministers who have repeatedly sought to misrepresent the truth on spending on flood defences. As the UK Statistics Authority has stated, the Government like to include external funding in its figures, or “partnership funding” as it calls it.
	The figure that Ministers quote is £148 million, yet thanks to a recent parliamentary answer from the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), the Government have been forced to admit that there is an £80.4 million black hole in this total because they have failed to secure the contributions anticipated. I hope that the Communities Secretary can update the House on how that will be filled.

Andrew Percy: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way on that point. Match funding is important in this. Last night, North Lincolnshire council set its budget, in which the Conservative-led council added £5 million for flood defences along the Trent and the Humber. Can she tell me why Labour councillors voted against that budget and that funding?

Maria Eagle: I hope that if the Minister, whose parliamentary answer I am quoting from, has updated figures, he will provide them to the House when he replies to the debate.

Dan Rogerson: indicated assent.

Maria Eagle: The reductions to flood defence spending were not just numbers on a spreadsheet, but actual planned flood defence projects.

Henry Smith: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Maria Eagle: No, not at this time. [Interruption.] I have given way relatively generously, so I do not think I should be criticised for saying no on one occasion.
	In total, 290 shovel-ready flood defence projects were cancelled and 966 delayed as a result of those decisions. Appallingly, these appear to have included 13 schemes along the Thames and 67 in the south-west. Does not that highlight the cost of the Government’s misguided approach? The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs also cut more than 40% from his Department’s budget for domestic climate change initiatives last year. Therefore, just 0.7% or £17.2million of the Environment Department’s budget is now dedicated to preparing or adapting Britain for the impact of climate change, and his is the lead Department. Of course, we only know this thanks to an freedom of information request, because the Secretary of State sought to disguise the cut by lumping it in with the funding to meet our obligations to the international climate fund.
	Before these floods hit, Ministers were about to make yet another ill thought- through decision that would have reduced the country’s ability to cope with major flood incidents. In addition to the 600 Environment Agency staff lost since 2010, we know from leaked briefings that a further 557 flooding staff were due to be cut this year. The Prime Minister has said that
	“those aren’t plans that are going to be put in place”.
	Yet it is far from clear whether this means that there will be no further job losses in the agency, or whether the commitment relates only to those working directly on flood protection. Neither is it clear for how long this commitment remains valid. I hope that the Secretary of State will clarify the situation and give us some further information on this.
	There have been some disgraceful attempts by Ministers to place the blame for some of these decisions at the door of the Environment Agency, not least by the Communities Secretary himself. Yet, as the chairman of the Environment Agency has made clear,
	“a limit on the amount we can contribute to any individual scheme, determined by a benefit-to-cost rule imposed on us by the Treasury”
	was placed on the agency.
	I hope that the Communities Secretary will take the opportunity to confirm that the cost-benefit ratio rules imposed on flood defence schemes will be reviewed. I hope that he will also accept, in hindsight, that Ministers should not have sought to evade responsibility for their own decisions.
	The Pitt review set out 92 separate recommendations, all but one for the Government, and significant progress on their implementation was being made at the time of the last election, yet when this Government came to office in 2010, some recommendations that had been implemented were reversed. The Cabinet committee on improving the country’s ability to deal with flooding and the national resilience forum were both abolished. Then in January 2012, the Government published what
	was entitled a “final progress report”, despite 46 recommendations not having been fully implemented. We urgently need clarity on the progress—or lack of it—that has been made since January 2012. I hope that the Secretary of State will reconsider his previous refusal to agree to our call for a new update to be brought before Parliament.
	The Government have demonstrated a complete lack of urgency in securing the legal basis for the proposed flood reinsurance scheme. Thanks to three years of inaction from Ministers, this scheme will not be in place until 2015 at the earliest. As we have warned throughout the passage of the Water Bill, which is still being considered in another place, the scheme is deeply flawed. In Committee, Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members of this House voted down Labour amendments to improve the Bill. Those amendments included requiring Ministers to consult the Committee on Climate Change on the number of properties that might need to be added to the scheme in future; incentivising owners of at-risk properties to invest in flood protection measures; enabling people to search whether or not a property is included in the scheme; and establishing an appeal mechanism for those excluded—all measures opposed by the Government.
	A balance has to be struck, of course, between the cost of the levy on other households and the scope of the scheme. However, the significant number of exemptions from the scheme continues to be of real concern and controversy, not least for tenants and leaseholders. In the light of the recent floods and the fact that the Water Bill has not completed its passage through both Houses, I hope that the Minister might consider agreeing to cross-party talks on those issues. It is vital that we ensure that the Flood Re insurance scheme is fit for purpose over the long term.

Diana Johnson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Maria Eagle: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I would like to conclude my remarks.
	I hope that the Government will also consider the call by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition for the national consensus on climate change to be rebuilt. The events of the past few weeks have shown that that is now a matter of national security, with people’s homes, businesses and livelihoods under threat from extreme weather. All the evidence points to that happening more frequently in future.
	Before the last election, we were edging towards that consensus. The Stern report set out clearly the catastrophic impact on our economy of a failure to act on climate change. The Committee on Climate Change and carbon budgets were established. Targets to reduce emission were set. Investment in flood protection was rising. The leader of the Conservative party was hugging huskies and pledging to lead the greenest Government ever.
	Just three years later, however, the progress that was being made appears to have stalled and the Prime Minister is allegedly wandering around Downing street talking of his wish to be rid of all this “green crap”. Tellingly, he has appointed an Environment Secretary who talks up the alleged benefits of climate change and refuses to be briefed on the subject by the Government’s scientific advisers.
	We urgently need to re-establish the consensus on the threat to the UK of climate change. The science is clear. The evidence is overwhelming. The Committee on Climate Change warns that current planned funding will
	“result in around 250,000 more households becoming exposed to a significant risk of flooding by 2035”.
	These floods must be a wake-up call: a wake-up call on whether dedicating just 0.7% of DEFRA’s budget to climate change mitigation and adaptation makes sense ; a wake-up call on the folly of ignoring the impact of climate change in the Food Re insurance scheme; and a wake-up call on the consequences of cutting investment in flood protection. For the communities that have suffered such appalling flooding in recent weeks, that is the very least they deserve.

Eric Pickles: I thank the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) for sending her best wishes to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whom I spoke to a short time before the debate. He is making progress but, as Members will readily understand, is going through an extremely painful process. She has been extremely kind in sending him messages.
	There were many things in the hon. Lady’s speech that were lacking in accuracy or were exaggerated, but let just one thing speak for everything: her criticism of our promise to open the railway line at Dawlish in six weeks. Let us be clear that the enormous gap in that line is being mended in the face of the most difficult storms. Containers filled with rocks were obtained to protect it, and without that houses would have been lost, yet the storms continued. Despite that work, the gap increased by 70% over the weekend. The people repairing the line are working around the clock to deliver a railway. Frankly, being sneered at by the hon. Lady is not very helpful.

Jonathan Djanogly: Is not part of the problem with the Labour party’s argument that its Members talk in generalisations? In reality, a huge amount of good work has been going on across the country, not least in Godmanchester in my constituency, where tomorrow a £10 million new scheme will be opened to keep over 1,000 of my constituents safe from flooding.

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend makes a very reasonable case. Indeed, we will be announcing a number of schemes that will help with that process. In fairness to the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood, she did pay tribute to the people who have done this work.
	I welcome this debate. I think that despite the hon. Lady’s best endeavours, there is a lot of common ground between the Government and the Opposition on this motion. Unless the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who will put the case for the Labour party towards the end of the debate, is particularly aggressive and provocative, it is certainly not the Government’s intention to oppose the motion. [Interruption.] As he says, perish the thought.
	As the hon. Lady said, Britain has faced some of the worst flooding in decades. The wettest winter in two and half centuries has caused significant damage to homes, businesses, transport and farmland. Areas across the country—

Chris Ruane: rose—

Eric Pickles: Will the hon. Gentleman bear with me for a few moments? I would like to set out the case, and then of course he will get first dibs.

Chris Ruane: I am glad that the Secretary of State calls me the hon. Gentleman rather than the hon. Lady, as he referred to me last week.

Eric Pickles: I have upgraded my glasses since then. However, I have always regarded the hon. Gentleman as a particularly attractive Member of this House.
	Areas across the country have suffered from flooding, power loss, damage to local infrastructure, and coastal erosion. In some of the worst affected areas, communities will continue to suffer the after-effects for months to come, long after the cameras and the Westminster politicians have disappeared. I commend the tireless work of local councils, firefighters, Environment Agency staff on the ground, local volunteers and our armed forces for the work they have done, and still do, around the clock.

Gerald Howarth: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Jeremy Browne: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Eric Pickles: No, the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) has first dibs, and then I will give way again.

Chris Ruane: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. What role does he think that climate change has played in the recent floods?

Eric Pickles: I will come to that point towards the end of my speech. If the hon. Gentleman is not happy with my remarks, I will give way to him again.

Jeremy Browne: The Secretary of State talked about the long-term task of clearing up after the floods. Is he able to provide some reassurance to my constituents that the A361, which is the principal road from Taunton into the middle of Somerset, will be passable once the floodwater has receded? Many of my constituents are nervous that even when the water has dissipated, the state of the road will mean that they are not allowed to travel along it.

Eric Pickles: We have put in some additional money ready for those precise circumstances. One of our concerns was about the riverbanks. Having looked carefully at the situation, and having had people in from the Netherlands to look at it, it seems as though they are in a very good condition. As for the condition of the road, as the hon. Gentleman will recognise, when it has been submerged for some time, the problem is not just potholes but the surface rising. We will be looking at that, because it is clearly of national importance to see it back in operation as quickly as possible.

Andrew Smith: Will the Government complete a proper assessment of the economic impact of the flooding as well as, of course, the awful
	impact on people? Only through such an assessment can proper evaluation be made of schemes such as the western relief channel for Oxford, which is the only practical means of reducing the flooding there, which the Secretary of State came to see for himself.

Eric Pickles: The right hon. Gentleman is right. I went to look at the possibilities there and was well and truly lobbied. I have reason to be very grateful to firefighters who came up with a way of keeping the roads open with a very inventive use of high-volume hoses.

Gerald Howarth: The Secretary of State has mentioned the work of the agencies. May I put it on the record that, since Aldershot was badly hit by flooding in 2006, Rushmoor borough council, Thames Water and the Environment Agency have combined not only to clear some of the vegetation from Cove brook, but to undertake other work that has resulted in our being very lightly hit this time? It is very important that we have a balanced debate about flooding, so I say to my right hon. Friend that in Aldershot we are very grateful for the work that has been done. We know that more must be done, but let us put on the record what has been done.

Eric Pickles: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes some reasonable points and shows what can be done. In fairness, the weather was much worse for a more prolonged period than it was in 2007, and the number of dwellings affected is 7,000 or thereabouts, which is just a tiny proportion of the 55,000 or 56,000. That is a reflection of some very good protection work.

Henry Smith: Will my right hon. Friend also welcome the £11.7 million that has been spent on the upper River Mole flood alleviation scheme since 2010, which has protected hundreds of homes that otherwise may have been flooded during recent events?

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point.

Nadine Dorries: rose—

Eric Pickles: It would seem mean not to let my hon. Friend in.

Nadine Dorries: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. Will he use his good offices to persuade the Environment Agency that our constituents who live close to the rivers and watch them day in, day out know them very well, and that when they make representations to the Environment Agency asking for the rivers to be dredged, they have good reason to do so? My constituents in Shefford watched the water mark rise and rise. They escaped flooding, but only just and despite having made repeated representations to the Environment Agency. Perhaps my right hon. Friend could use his offices to make sure that the Environment Agency pays attention to constituents.

Eric Pickles: I will raise that issue with the Environment Agency, which I found very responsive to individual schemes. If my hon. Friend would be kind enough to give me more precise details, I will try to get an answer for her.

Chris Williamson: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Eric Pickles: I think not. I need to make some progress. I will give way later to the hon. Gentleman, who no doubt wants to say something about firefighters.
	In response to the situation, this Government have taken and continue to take decisive action. The risk of river and coastal flooding is now diminishing, although groundwater remains—and will remain for some time—a problem.
	Although the signs of spring may be appearing on the trees outside, for some the misery remains. The Government are in daily contact with gold commanders in all areas, continuing to offer Government support. As the weather patterns return to a more typical form for this time of year, coastal and river waters are likely to return to their normal flow. Gold commanders maintain a state of readiness to respond to future flooding should the risk increase again in the coming weeks.
	Locally, the transition to recovery is under way and most areas have convened recovery meetings. For those that have not, a shadow organisation will be ready to respond at any given time. The ministerial recovery group is co-ordinating Government support to local areas and infrastructure owners and operators, to enable a return to normality as quickly as possible. That is complemented by a new Cabinet Committee on flooding, to learn the lessons for the future.
	Although the floodwaters remain, I reiterate that every resource is available to local communities affected. We will keep providing whatever immediate practical support and assistance is needed, whether it be extra pumps and sandbags, military support on the ground or emergency funds for local councils.
	Recognising the particular nature of the situation in Somerset, we have been working closely with all local agencies to develop a sustainable solution to the water management of that area. The Government have announced that the dredging of the Somerset levels will be ready to start by the end of March, provided that water levels drop. Dredging will take place on an 8 km section where the Tone and Parrett rivers meet. It is not a miracle cure, but it recognises that mistakes were made and policies needed to be changed. Sometimes the state should say sorry, and that is exactly what we have done.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The contracts are now out, and we start the work on the 28th. As he says, the important point is that we cannot pump north of Burrowbridge because of the capacity level of the river—it is 40% below capacity. We will only be able to pump in the Somerton and Frome and the Taunton Deane seats when that work takes place. Will he make sure that the Environment Agency and others stick to that timetable?

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend is right. We have an enormous pumping capacity, but we need to be cautious in how it is used on the Parrett and the Tone and, of course, in the King’s Sedgemoor drain. Some of the larger pumps that we have brought across from Holland can take out an enormous amount of water, but we clearly have to ensure that their pattern of use does not lead to a degree of scouring that would threaten the banks’ stability. We are going about that in a very reasoned way: it may take weeks longer than is ideal, but it is important that it is done in a safe way.

Rosie Cooper: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Eric Pickles: I will, but I hope that the House will forgive me if I then make some progress.

Rosie Cooper: Does the Secretary of State know whether any regulations are being used to stop dredging at this time? When farmers in my areas asked for dredging to take place, they were told that regulations say that it is the breeding season and that birds cannot be disturbed, so dredging has not occurred. Is there any way in which such regulations can be overruled?

Eric Pickles: Again, if the hon. Lady would be kind enough to give me precise details of that matter, I will certainly engage with it. I do not want to give the impression that dredging is the solution to everything. It might well be inappropriate; in particular, it might make the situation of a very fast flowing river worse. We need to be able to put together bespoke solutions for particular areas. Part of my area of Essex has been saved from flooding by the sensible use of water meadows, which is an idea that I very much support. We cannot replace one doctrinaire view with another ideological one.

Debbie Abrahams: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Eric Pickles: I want to make a little progress if that is convenient. I will give way, but I first want to make a little progress, because other hon. Members want to speak.
	On financial support, we will continue to do whatever it takes nationwide to support local communities across the country that have been affected by flooding and to aid their transition to recovery. The Bellwin scheme is helping councils to meet exceptional and unexpected costs associated with protecting lives and properties. I have extended the scheme: raising the payments to 100%, rather than the normal 85%; making it easier for fire authorities to claim; lowering the threshold for counties and unitary authorities; and extending the scheme to the end of May. I want to make it clear that that is not written in concrete; if we need to extend the scheme again, I will consider doing so. We have already received 96 notifications from local authorities that they intend to make a claim under the scheme.
	In addition to the Bellwin scheme, we have established a severe weather recovery scheme. It was started following the flooding just before Christmas. This fund will support communities and repair local highway infrastructure. Today, I can announce that we will extend the qualifying period for local authorities to claim under that scheme to the end of May, and that we will increase the amount of money to £40 million.
	Flooding has an immense emotional impact on householders: like burglary, the effects and trauma linger for months. To do our bit, we have made £4 million available to councils to fund council tax rebates for people whose homes have been flooded. The rebate will be for at least three months, and it should cover everything for the period during which people cannot live in their property.

Therese Coffey: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Eric Pickles: I did say that I would not give way, but I can never resist my hon. Friend’s charm.

Therese Coffey: My right hon. Friend’s announcement is really welcome news, as homes in Great Yarmouth and Suffolk Coastal in East Anglia were flooded at the beginning of December. Will he say more about accelerating the repairs in places where they are being done right now?

Eric Pickles: As my hon. Friend almost certainly knows, applications for the first phase of severe weather payments came in a couple of weeks ago. It is our intention to get the money out of the door as quickly as possible.

Debbie Abrahams: Given everything that the Secretary of State has said about the emotion and trauma that is caused to householders who are flooded, do the Government regret removing the priority to
	“prepare for and manage risk from flood”?
	That quotation is from the ninth report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on the departmental annual report.

Eric Pickles: The hon. Lady only has to look around to see how effective the new schemes have been. We have continued producing schemes. A number of Members have stood up and recognised what has happened. To be frank, I am pretty partisan and I am doing my best to be restrained. I point out politely that the last Labour Chancellor announced that if the Labour party won the last election, capital schemes would be cut by half. I do not believe for one moment that flood defences would have been exempt from that. After all, the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood, who has many fine qualities, has not been able to give a commitment that she would match the spending plans of the coalition Government.

Chris Williamson: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Eric Pickles: Oh no, I don’t think so—not for a while.
	Councils have the discretion to extend the relief. Since April, they have had the ability to waive the council tax exemption on empty homes to get them back into use, and to use the money to support front-line services or keep council tax down. The Leader of the Opposition supports that policy. However, I believe that the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) has his doubts about it. It would be helpful if, in his summation, he made those doubts clear or demonstrated that he is at one with his leader.
	The Government have been clear that we can give councils local flexibility. Councils can continue to use their discretionary powers to offer council tax relief to people whose homes are empty through no fault of their own. If councils are raising extra funds by waiving the exemption, they have a moral obligation to fund council tax relief for flooded homes for as long as it takes for families to get back into them. It would be most unfortunate if councils were portrayed as making money from misery.
	To support home owners and businesses, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is providing a repair and renewal grant of up to £5,000 per household.

Chris Williamson: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Eric Pickles: In a moment.
	The repair and renewal grant will top up any money that is received from insurers to ensure that flood resilience is built into homes and businesses as they are repaired. We are providing support for local businesses to give them the breathing space that they need to recover from the flooding. All affected businesses will get 100% business rate relief for three months.

Richard Ottaway: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Eric Pickles: I will in a moment.
	Businesses will have extra time to pay other business taxes that they owe to the taxman while they get back on their feet. We have announced a separate business support scheme that is worth up to £10 million for small and medium-sized firms in flood risk areas. We are helping farmers who have been affected by the flooding and severe weather to get their businesses back on track as soon as possible. A new £10 million farming recovery fund has been set up to help local farmers that have been directly affected and to meet the short-term costs as the flood waters recede.
	We are building infrastructure resilience into our railways and roads, including through a £31 million scheme to deliver 10 rail projects that will improve resilience against flooding.

Richard Ottaway: The Secretary of State will know from his visit to my constituency that a number of businesses that were not flooded were affected by the floods. Will he confirm that the compensation package that he has just announced will apply to those businesses, even though they were not flooded?

Eric Pickles: Certainly part of the amount that I have just announced with regard to businesses will be, although the rate rebate will not be available. This is perhaps a good opportunity for me to apologise to my right hon. Friend because I am afraid my office did not inform him of my visit to his constituency, which was made at short notice. I deeply regret that because he is a most diligent constituency MP, and I know he had been at the site the previous day. That was a good example of how adaptable firefighters have been: the use of the underpass as a balancing pool was a work of absolute genius, and it undoubtedly saved that important pumping station.

Chris Williamson: rose—

Eric Pickles: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Chris Williamson: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. I indicated that I might mention firefighters, but I think I will save that for a little later. He spoke earlier about a moral obligation on local authorities, but are the Government not under a moral obligation to reinstate the significant cuts that they made to the flood defence scheme when they came to power, particularly in view of the Prime Minister’s statement at the press conference he called on 11 February, when he said that the Government
	“will build a more resilient country for the future”?
	What does that mean if not reinstating those cuts?

Eric Pickles: The hon. Gentleman must forgive me because I have had this conversation with him before. We were rather short of money when we arrived because of the poor way—[Interruption.] Let us be fair. The hon. Gentleman might have missed the point as he was probably getting ready for the intervention, but as I said in response to the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), who has sadly left her customary place, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Labour Government made absolutely clear that they would have reduced the capital programme by half. The Opposition are not even in a position to match the funding that we are offering now. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman speaks to the shadow Chancellor and urges him to reverse the position of refusing to offer help to flood victims.
	Since the east coast surge in early December, more than 1.3 million properties have been protected by flood defences. The substantial flooding in the Somerset levels and elsewhere will take time to subside, and while immediate action is needed, we also need to look to the future. Fifty-five schemes starting this year will protect more than 43,000 households, and we are providing £130 million of assistance for the repair of sea and flood defences, including £10 million specifically set aside for Somerset. In total, the Government are spending £2.4 billion over four years, versus £2.2 billion over the last four years of the previous Government.
	Looking further forward, we have made an unprecedented long-term six-year commitment to record levels of capital investment in improving defences, including £370 million by the end of this Parliament and the same in real terms each year, rising to £400 million by the end of the decade. These are capital spending plans that the Opposition have declined to match and the Labour party has refused to commit to. Our plans will improve protection for at least 465,000 households by the end of the decade.

Ian Lavery: We have all seen what happened in the flood-risk areas, and my sympathy goes to everyone involved. However, will the Secretary of State look at the situation in the north-east and give a cast-iron guarantee that moneys already allocated for coastal erosion and other flood schemes will not be reduced or withdrawn to ensure that finances are made available for other schemes?

Eric Pickles: The hon. Gentleman will remember, as I do, that tidal surge before Christmas, which was one of the scariest things I have ever seen. We were remarkably lucky that the flood defences held for the most part. It would be an act of folly to say that one part can flood and another cannot. Who can say? We are just a few days away before the first spring tides start to occur. The weather looks relatively benign, but were spring tides ever to coincide with a tidal surge we would have some real problems. Sadly, the Somerset levels are again at risk of flooding this weekend.

Tobias Ellwood: The Secretary of State mentions tidal surges, which are exactly what affected the River Stour and the Iford park homes. I am grateful for the promised Government funding to support businesses and dwellings, but will he confirm that that will include mobile home parks that have been affected by flooding?

Eric Pickles: I am afraid I did not quite catch the last couple of words. What assurance was my hon. Friend seeking?

Tobias Ellwood: The River Stour overflowed when it hit the incoming tide, flooding mobile home parks. My right hon. Friend referred to “dwellings” in relation to funding. Will mobile home parks be included?

Eric Pickles: Of course. Absolutely. A mobile home is entitled to the same protection as a dwelling that has foundations.
	On the Pitt review, in which the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) took such an interest, the vast majority of its recommendations have been implemented, with the majority of measures now in force. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is committed to implementing the remaining five Pitt recommendations by the end of this year. We are making the necessary legislative changes in the Water Bill.
	Rightly, attention should now turn to how councils plan for development and how they build. Decisions on whether to grant planning permission are, of course, a matter for local planning authorities.

Andrew Percy: On the issue of building on floodplains, may I bring to the attention of the Secretary of State the proposals going through North Lincolnshire council to build up to 10,000 homes on a floodplain between Burringham and Gunness in my constituency and Scunthorpe, a project created by the previous Labour council? I am deeply concerned about it, as is the leader of North Lincolnshire council. It is still going through the local development framework process, but may I just put it on his radar and urge him to support those of us who are concerned, after what we have just seen, about development on floodplains?

Eric Pickles: I will come on to the question of floodplains in a few moments, but the matter is on my radar. My colleague the Planning Minister will of course look at it with a completely open mind when the time comes.
	Rightly, attention is now turning to how councils plan to develop and where they plan to build. Councils should take advice, where appropriate, from the Environment Agency and weigh up the different material considerations, from biodiversity to the need for more homes. Having said that, 99% of proposed new residential units that the EA objected to on floodplain grounds were decided in line with EA advice, where the decisions are known. I would say this, however: there is no monopoly on knowledge. Local elected councillors should decide and be held to account for their decisions.
	Nevertheless, the estimated number of dwellings built in areas of high flood risk in England is now at its lowest rate since modern records began. That figure will change from year to year. It may rise and it may fall, but it will never be zero. A zero figure would mean a complete ban on any form of development in many existing towns and cities that happen to be flood-risk areas. Approximately 10% of England is high flood risk, such as large parts of Hull, Portsmouth and central London—indeed, this Chamber is in a high flood risk area. National planning policy clearly states that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided. Councils should direct development
	away from areas at highest risk. Where development is unavoidable, it must be demonstrated that it is safe and will not increase flood risk elsewhere.
	Councils have a robust power to reject unacceptable planning applications. Councils’ local plans should also shape where development should and should not take place. They should address the needs of associated infrastructure to accompany new building. National planning policy is clear that any new building that is needed in flood-risk areas should be appropriately flood-resistant and resilient. Mitigation measures such as land raising, landscaping, raised thresholds and rearranging the internal use of buildings can also make a development appropriate in such areas.
	For example, London has long been at risk of tidal flooding, as evident from the North sea floods of 1953, which inflicted immense damage to the east end of London. However, since 1983 the Thames barrier has mitigated that risk. We did not have to ban all development in London; we overcame the challenge through science. We do not face a binary choice of economic growth versus flooding, town versus country or bailing out flood victims versus saving children in other parts of the world from being killed by contaminated drinking water. These are false comparisons and false choices. I want to be clear: we can and must do both. All that is required is political will, determination and innovation.

Laurence Robertson: The Secretary of State talks about development being directed away from flood-risk areas unless it is absolutely necessary. However, the question is: why is it absolutely necessary to build in certain areas that are at great risk of flooding, including in my constituency, which he has been kind enough to observe?

Eric Pickles: I vividly remember the visit to my hon. Friend’s constituency in 2007. There is rarely a time when I pass Tewkesbury that I do not think of that. He makes a very reasonable point. Historic Tewkesbury remained relatively dry, while the new bit has experienced a degree of flooding. Things have to be managed. Ten per cent of the country is a large area; London is a large area. We need to ensure that a degree of caution is exercised, but ultimately we have to ensure that our citizens are safe.

Lilian Greenwood: rose—

Diana Johnson: rose—

Eric Pickles: If the hon. Ladies will bear with me, I want to talk about the challenge of climate change and then I will give way.
	The same approach should apply to climate change. There are certainly man-made causes to the recent flooding and the main cause needs man-made management. Policies on dredging, development and even tree planting directly affect our landscape, but the weather is a factor in itself. The debate on climate is highly charged and polarised between sceptics and zealots, but the conclusions should not be. We know that Britain’s weather and climate is fickle. If Britain was to have a national symbol, it would undoubtedly be the umbrella. Any expectation that the Met Office could have predicted
	the amount and severity of that rain is simply unreasonable. It does not have a crystal ball, despite improvements in predictions.
	The Met Office still does not definitively know whether climate change contributed to the recent weather patterns. This might be a short-term trend or a long-term one, but I would simply say this: the risk is there to our nation of a changing intensity in Britain’s weather. Given that risk, we should prepare. It would be irrational not to insure ourselves against that risk, and if there is a long-term trend, we should adapt to such change, as my noble Friend Lord Lawson has advocated.
	“Just as science and technology has given us the evidence to measure the danger of climate change, so it can help us find safety from it.”
	That seems a very reasonable statement and I commend it to the House. It is the view of a former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and I think he spoke very wisely.

Lilian Greenwood: If the Government really understand the potential impacts of climate change and extreme weather, why does their draft national policy statement on roads and rail contain no reference to ensuring that our existing transport infrastructure is resilient?

Eric Pickles: The hon. Lady is pointing to various documents and looking for omissions, but the facts speak for themselves, and the schemes that we are operating speak for themselves. We have been able to protect 1.3 million households, and although these have been perhaps the worst storms that we have faced for two and a half centuries, the number of properties affected has been relatively small.

Hon. Members: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Eric Pickles: As the floodwaters recede and the dark skies clear, there will be lessons to be learnt about the role and policies of quangos, the influence of man-made interventions on our landscape and rivers, and the resilience of our nation as a whole in the 21st century.

Hon. Members: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Eric Pickles: However, the first and the primary role of Governments is the defence of the realm. This Government will take whatever action is necessary to defend our nation from the forces of nature—

Hon. Members: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Eleanor Laing: Order. Members must allow the Secretary of State to conclude his speech.

Eric Pickles: I am most grateful for your protection, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I was saying, this Government will take whatever action is necessary to defend our nation from the forces of nature, and will prepare for the threats that it faces in years to come.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. As the House will be aware, a great many Members wish to speak, and there is a limited amount of time. I must therefore impose a time limit of eight minutes on Back-Bench speeches.

Paul Flynn: If we are able to answer one question, it will give us the key to what I believe are the long-term practical solutions to the problems of Somerset and elsewhere. Why did the Somerset levels flood and the Gwent levels not flood?
	Having represented part of the Gwent levels continuously as an elected person since 1972, I know them well, and members of my family live in Somerset. The areas are almost identical. They share 2,000 years of history, and their topographies and geographies are identical. The Gwent levels were drained by the Romans, and the sea wall was built by the 20th Augustan legion 2,000 years ago. During that long period, the levels have been treated very much the same. Drainage has been put into both. They have recently shared exactly the same weather—they are only a short distance apart—and exactly the same tides. There is no dredging on either side. So why on earth was there flooding on one side of the Severn estuary and not on the other? I believe that the answer lies in farming techniques.
	As has been said, dredging is not a panacea. In 1928 there was a flood here, on this spot. The terraced houses opposite, in Page street and Millbank, were flooded, and people died. That flood was caused by dredging, which was carried out in the lower reaches of the Thames to increase access for ships. Yes, water did flow out more quickly as a result, but it also flowed in more quickly. It was easy for the tide to come in. In the dredged areas, the tide came in and met the water coming down from the hills. If dredging is seen as the answer in Somerset and is proceeded with, the lower reaches of the Parrett will be exposed to the extraordinary characteristics of the Severn, which holds more sediment in suspension than almost any other river in the country.

David Heath: I am sorry, but I think that the hon. Gentleman is completely mistaken. The River Parrett is tidal for 18.3 miles of its length from the Severn estuary. It is precisely because of the tidal surge from the Parrett that we cannot move the water away from the Mendips, the Quantocks and the other hills. That is not comparable to the situation in the Gwent levels, where the topography is different.

Paul Flynn: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, on the characteristics of the Severn we know that on both sides of the river we have the second highest rising and falling tides in the world, but the issue is the amount of sediment because of the length of the river. In the Severn estuary and on the beaches, sometimes the rocks are clean and nothing has been deposited, but on another tide 1 foot of mud may be deposited there. Given the 18 tidal miles of the Parrett, it will be easy for the sediment to come in. However, the sediment is not just coming in from the tidal reaches of the river; it is also coming down from the hills. That is key. Dredging would create an open door to allow the sediment to move in from the Severn in greater quantities, as it did with the Thames in 1928.
	What is the difference between the two areas? The difference lies in the Quantocks, the Mendips, around the Welsh hills and the Wentwood. There is a difference in farming in the two areas. That is made clear in a report in Soil Use and Management. It contained a warning, six weeks before the floods moved into Somerset,
	that a disaster was brewing. It said that surface water run-off in the south-west of England, where the Somerset levels are, was reaching a critical point—it said that six weeks beforehand. It added that on 30% of the land that researchers investigated, instead of percolating into the ground the water was pouring off the fields.
	One of the main reasons was the increase in the growth of maize. There are other reasons, but when I was first elected the maize grown in this country occupied 1,400 acres. It now occupies 160,000 acres. What are the characteristics of that? It breaks up the soil and allows the water to run off. Maize is being grown in Britain not for food for humans but for animal food and biodiesel. One could ask whether, in trying to solve the climate change problem in that direction, we are creating a bigger problem in the other.
	There was another warning—a clear warning—in 2005, when a Government report published a devastating catalogue of the impact of the changes in land use. As well as warning of the loss of fertility from the land and the poisoning of water courses, it said that
	“increased run-off and sediment deposition can also increase flood hazard in rivers”.
	That point was made in 2005. That Government paper urged:
	“Wherever possible, avoid growing forage maize on high and very high erosion risk areas.”
	The Government of the time—this is crucial—made it a condition of receiving some £3 billion in subsidies that farmers took action against that. The Government argued that ground cover crops should be sown, as a condition of receiving the subsidies, under maize and the land should be ploughed, then resown with winter cover plants within 10 days of harvesting to prevent water from sheeting off. Why is that not happening in Somerset? The reason is that the current Government have dropped that condition. That is one of the main causes of the extent of the floods. They issued a specific exemption for maize cultivation from soil conservation measures. We are now in the position of looking for instant solutions. Dredging is the cry. It has some effect but it can be deleterious as well.
	We have thrown money at the problem, which most people are asking for. That will help, but in the town that I represent, there were regular floods 20 or 30 years ago. Now there are areas where fields are designed to flood and to take the excess water, and they have not been flooded for decades. There are plans. If we go ahead with some of the instant solutions being suggested in Somerset, we will decrease the flood threat to farmlands but we will greatly increase the threat to urban areas. One field flooded is far less damaging than having 100 houses flooded. We have to look realistically at the changes that are taking place. Of course the weather was thoroughly exceptional, but there are whole areas of Somerset that have been flooding for centuries. The “ey” suffix on the names of many of the villages there means “island”, and historically they were islands—little mounds standing up among the flat areas.
	I welcome the reasonable way in which the Secretary of State has put his case today. We are now looking for long-term solutions. We are not looking for solutions that merely address the immediate political problems;
	we need solutions that will last for decades and that will take into account the changes in farming on our hillsides. The land there is no longer retaining the water and allowing it to percolate through slowly; the water is now rushing rapidly down and causing these freak flooding incidents. Thank goodness we have also come back to the realisation of the seriousness of global warming, which the motion also mentions. For so long, we have heard Conservative Members saying that it is not serious. It is, and we must act against it.

Laurence Robertson: I am pleased to be able to make a brief speech in this important debate. My constituency did not flood immediately but the waters got there in the end, and the continuing rain made for a difficult couple of weeks. I was grateful to the Prime Minister for coming in person to see the effects and meet a number of people who told him what we needed to do—and to avoid doing—in our area. I will outline one or two of those things in a moment.
	I was pleased with the Government’s response to the flooding, so far as my constituency was concerned. I was also pleased that the Army was called in to help certain vulnerable people, and I commend the good work done by the fire and rescue services, the police, the Environment Agency and a number of the local councillors, who responded very quickly to the flooding.

Bob Stewart: I spank my hon. Friend—[Laughter.] I mean, I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I am going red now. The Pitt review suggested that when the armed forces were used in these circumstances, they should be paid for at full cost. Does my hon. Friend agree that we ought to look into reducing the cost of the armed forces at times of national emergency? At the moment, they often seem too expensive to be used.

Laurence Robertson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I have to say that there is very little chance of his going red, as far as I know. He makes a good point, and he knows far more than I do about the financing of the Army.
	The Government response in my area was certainly very good, and a number of the schemes that have been built there in the past few years have also been very successful. Nevertheless, three of the four roads that serve the town of Tewkesbury were closed, and the situation was becoming serious. Sadly, a number of houses were also flooded. I say “houses”, but I should rephrase that. They are people’s homes. Some homes in Sandhurst and Longford, which are villages just down the River Severn, were flooded for the third time in not very many years, and it was heartbreaking to visit them. The challenge, which I want to discuss with the Government, is how we can avoid such flooding in the future.
	It has been acknowledged that the Government cannot control the weather, and we seem to have experienced rather different weather cycles over the past few years. Nobody will have forgotten the terrible floods of 2007, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr Pickles) came to visit Tewkesbury and saw some of the problems that we were facing. Even people on the other side of the world heard about those
	floods. I have spoken to people in Australia who remember seeing the famous picture of the flooded land surrounding Tewkesbury abbey. The abbey itself did not flood, and neither did an even older church just down the way at Deerhurst—it was built in about the 8th century—even though the village does flood.
	The important point, which I am going to have to take up with the Secretary of State, although I raised it in an intervention and he did mention the building, is how vital it is not to continue to build in flood-risk areas. I hear what he says about 10% of the country being at flood risk. I have only a simple education, but I suggest that we do not build in the 10% and concentrate building in the 90%. Surely there is enough room to build the houses that we need.
	I want to take up the issue of house building, because of a number of sites in my area that have been given planning permission. One of them is absolutely covered in water—it is at Longford, in an area that floods badly. Permission was granted, on appeal, by the previous Government, but I do not know why that happened. That was six years ago, but the houses have not yet been built. Planning permission has been given for a lot of houses in both Bishop’s Cleeve and Brockworth, but those, too, have not yet been built. I say to my right hon. Friend, and to the Government, that I do not accept that there is this need for housing which is being expressed; this need is being overestimated by the Government. I have raised the issue before and we need to look at the point carefully.

Robin Walker: I recognise many of the issues that my hon. Friend from down the River Severn is raising. I do believe that houses need to be built, but does he agree that councillors should play a key role by making sure that they keep a record of flooded sites where some form of planning permission might have been given and, where necessary, use the planning system to protect them better, so that they are protecting the floodplain in the future?

Laurence Robertson: I agree with my hon. Friend and I am grateful to him for that intervention. However, the councils in my area are saying that the Government are putting so much pressure on them to build a given number of houses that they have no choice but to build them in green-belt and flood-risk areas. I am sorry to have to say it to the Secretary of State but that is what my local councils are telling me. They are saying that they cannot accommodate the number of houses that they will be required to build without impinging on the green belt and without putting them in flood-risk areas. That is open for debate, but that is what my local councils are clearly saying to me. I really need him to examine the situation carefully and as a matter of urgency, because it is causing a very big problem. That issue was raised with the Prime Minister when he came to my constituency a week or so ago.
	I wish to raise one or two other points about building in flood-risk areas. First, this issue comes down to what we define as a “flood-risk area”. I understand that the Environment Agency will assess an area as being at flood risk only if it is at risk from river flooding and not if it is at risk of surface water flooding. I would be happy to be corrected on that, but that is the situation as I understand it. Someone whose home is flooded
	does not really care what kind of water it is or where it has come from, because the situation is bad and they do not want it to happen. Perhaps the Government need to give different advice to the Environment Agency on how it classifies flood-risk areas.

Dan Rogerson: I just want to confirm that the flooding maps published by the Environment Agency before Christmas include surface flooding. Such an updating of the maps was one of the recommended changes, so that information is there. In addition, local authorities have key responsibilities in respect of groundwater and surface water flooding.

Laurence Robertson: I am grateful to the Minister for that and I will certainly take it up with the Environment Agency locally, but the map I saw just a couple of weeks ago was not coloured blue where there is surface water flooding. We need to take that up, but I will certainly take his words back to the local Environment Agency.
	I am also concerned about what the Environment Agency has told me about the cost-benefit ratio of flood prevention schemes. I raised this in a written question and I was told, “As long as it is greater than a level ratio, that is okay. They can go ahead and carry out those schemes.” But that is not what the Environment Agency is saying to me when I raise these points with it. So, again, I have to take these points back to the Environment Agency to see what we can do to have even more schemes put into place.
	I hear what has been said about dredging and desilting. They are not the entire answer to the problem, but in some areas, especially where there are pinch points, we must carry out that work. Although dredging and desilting are carried out in certain parts of the country, they used to be carried out an awful lot more. I am pleased that the Prime Minister has now weighed in on this and agreed that they should take place in certain areas, and that is what we are pressing the Environment Agency to do.
	I welcome a number of the initiatives that have recently been taken to help compensate people who have been flooded and to provide for the repairs and replacements that they need. Will there be any help for people to provide their own flood defences so that they do not get flooded in the first place? People who are better off may be able to afford to do that, but those who are less well off cannot. It would be better if we could help people to prevent the flooding in the first place, as well as trying to help those who have been flooded.
	On the issue of insurance, I am pleased that a lot of progress has been made on the Flood Re scheme, but what about the excess payments? An insurance company might provide the insurance, but if it puts an excess of £30,000 or £40,000, which I have come across, on a property it is effectively not covered, because an owner would have to pay so much to put it right that they would not be getting any insurance money back. I do not know whether the excesses will be covered in the Flood Re scheme.

Eric Pickles: indicated assent.

Laurence Robertson: My right hon. Friend is nodding. I look forward to receiving more details on that. That is good news if that is to be the case.
	Finally, I ask the Secretary of State to revisit the issue of housing numbers and to prevent houses being built in the wrong places, where they are likely to flood or cause other houses to flood.

Chris Ruane: It is my personal belief that global warming and climate change are occurring, that they had an effect on the recent flooding and that they will have a bigger effect on flooding in the future. That belief was the reason why I decided, eight years ago, to back npower’s proposals to put 30 wind turbines offshore off the coast of Rhyl. I switched on the turbines. The Prime Minister then came up to Llandudno for a Tory party conference and described those turbines as giant bird blenders. He then went back to London and stuck a mini bird blender on the top of his chimney.
	According to statistics given to me on 17 December, which do not include figures from the recent flooding, 408 households in my constituency flooded in the two-year period from 2011 to 2013. That is the second highest number in the UK. The Prime Minister did not visit my constituency to speak to the flood victims. My constituency was again flooded on 23 December, and again, he did not visit. That is an insult to the people of the Vale of Clwyd.

Hugh Bayley: Like my hon. Friend, I represent a constituency that is at great risk of flooding. I know the human suffering when people lose personal possessions—photos of weddings and of deceased relatives—homes and businesses. Will he say a little bit about how people in his constituency are coping with those pressures?

Chris Ruane: I will come on to that in a moment when I describe the visits that I have made to my constituents in the Vale of Clwyd, in St Asaph, Rhyl and Prestatyn.
	Progress has been made on flood defences in my constituency. Some £7 million has been spent on a harbour wall in Rhyl, £3 million on raising the banks of the River Clwyd and £4 million will be spent on extending the harbour wall. Having reviewed the two floods, my local authority has a list three pages long of the work that needs to be done in the Vale of Clwyd, and it can only be done if we get help from central Government. I spoke first hand to residents in St Asaph and in Rhyl when I visited them in December 2013.

Mark Tami: My hon. Friend will have heard the Prime Minister say that money was no object, but when it came to Wales, he was not quite so sure, nor so sure about where the money would come from.

Chris Ruane: I agree. The Prime Minister came to a constituency in west Wales to announce the UK––or rather English-only––increase in funding. Again, it was an insult to the people of Wales to treat them in such cavalier fashion.
	I have visited the people of St Asaph and Rhyl whose homes were flooded, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) that flooding
	has a massive impact on individuals. It is not just the flooding, or the six months after when their houses are drying out and being rebuilt, but the fact that it leads to stresses and strains. There was one direct death in St Asaph in the floods of 2012, but I believe that many more indirect deaths resulted from the stress caused to elderly people. I visited the people of the Rhyl East ward whose homes were up to 3 feet deep in murky brown water. They have been through hell and high water.
	I congratulate the volunteers and residents of those towns and of Prestatyn, which was nearly flooded. I congratulate the charities that raised funds, materials and gifts in kind for the victims. I congratulate the statutory authorities on their response, and I congratulate the voluntary organisations. The floods have left a legacy in my constituency. Some of the homes in St Asaph are now uninsurable and valueless. A £340,000 home, representing a lifetime’s commitment, is now valueless because it is uninsurable and the work that needs to be done to prevent future flooding cannot be undertaken given the lack of funding. People are living in fear. They watch the news every night to see the latest weather forecast and they do not sleep easy if it is going to be a bad night.
	The big issue is funding. I mentioned it in a question the other week to the Secretary of State, when he called me a lady. According to the Environment Agency, for every pound invested in flood defence, there is an £8 return. Which of us would not bet on a horse if we were getting £8 back for a pound down? The Government are not doing that. They are not putting the investment in place. I have tabled questions on this. The answer to parliamentary question 132249 revealed that in Labour’s last budget, the amount spent on flood defences overall was £664 million. The following year, it was cut to £573 million, then £560 million, then £574 million and then £612 million by 2015. Whichever way we look at it, those are cuts compared with the Labour years.
	I believe that those figures have been manipulated. They do not include inflation, but they do include not just central Government funding, which was what was in place in 2010-11, but private funding and funding from other agencies. We are not comparing apples with apples. In the Vale of Clwyd, we are pleased with the flood defence work, but it is does not matter if we build £7 million of defences here, £4 million there and £3 million over there, it only takes a gap as tiny as a little boy’s finger in the dyke to spoil the whole investment and environment and to wreck thousands of homes. If the proper flood defences are not put in place, these are wasted investments.
	The Pitt report made 94 recommendations, but many of them have not been taken up. I shall give examples. I have tabled 12 parliamentary questions on this. I tabled another 30 today, and there will be another 50 tomorrow, covering each of the recommendations. The answer to question 186940 stated:
	“I have made no assessment of local authority leaders’ or chief executives’ effectiveness”.—[Official Report, 13 February 2014; Vol. 575, c. 800W.]
	Why not? The answer to question 186945 stated:
	“There have been no discussions with the Association of British Insurers or other relevant organisations on this matter.” —[Official Report, 12 February 2014; Vol. 575, c. 661W.]
	Why not?

Eric Pickles: What matter?

Chris Ruane: On the matter of improving flood defences. Pitt recommends not building on flood plains, and in 2008-09 we had a 25% reduction in the number of houses built on flood plains. The figures are unavailable for 2012 and 2013. Why?
	After dealing with funding, the issue I turn to now is one that was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn): the importance of not only putting in place these big £7 million concrete defences but looking at softer, more sustainable ways to improve flood defences. I point to an excellent recent article by George Monbiot in The Guardian. There is huffing and puffing in the Chamber, but he made many excellent points, and I flushed out the issues that he addressed with about 20 parliamentary questions. I will come on to some of the answers in a moment.
	In the article, Monbiot referred to Pontbren in Wales, where farmers have engaged in linear contour planting of trees, to provide some shade and shelter for their sheep. What they noticed, after they had provided that shelter, is that flooding in the flood plain was down by 29%. Planting trees on just 5% of the hillside led to a 29% reduction in flooding in the flood plain; even if trees were planted on 100% of the hillside, there would only be a 50% reduction in flooding. We need specific targeted measures for such linear contour planting in the catchment areas of our big rivers, and even our little rivers. It would be a sound investment. A line of trees that has been planted is 67 times more effective in getting rainwater into the ground than grass alone.
	The funding is there. The funding for the common agricultural policy needs to be looked at. We need to be a strong voice in Europe, arguing that CAP funding can be used for afforestation in upland areas. We are creaming off 10% in England for this purpose, and we should be allowed to use that money to say to farmers and relevant bodies, “Plant these trees in these catchment areas and stop this water coming down and wrecking lives and households.”
	This is not just a Welsh Government issue—

Dan Rogerson: rose—

Chris Ruane: No, I will not give way. I have had meetings with Alun Davies, the Welsh Minister with responsibility for flooding, and I was really pleased with his response. I would like to have a meeting with the Minister, who has responsibility for flooding, and I hope that he will say yes in his winding-up speech to such a meeting. No assessment has been made by his Department of the impact that afforestation has on flooding. The Department for International Development is sending experts out to Nepal to tell people there how to deal with flooding, but it is not sending its advisers 500 yards down the road to DEFRA to tell the officials there how to do it.
	This is a serious issue. It has big effects for seaside towns, because the water that is percolating through the Welsh hills is pure and when it ends up on the coast it is not infected with sheep faeces or whatever, and we get clear readings for our mandatory bathing water standards. It is a win-win situation.

Andrew Turner: I am grateful for the opportunity to highlight the issues that we on the Isle of Wight have experienced during the past few
	weeks. We have two main problems as a result of the terrible weather—flooding and land movement. Of course, the island has experienced flooding in the past, but the meeting that I called about three weeks ago, with representatives of the Isle of Wight council, the Environment Agency, Island Roads and Southern Water, was to discuss a totally different type and scale of flooding from that experienced in the past.
	Flooding has occurred in rural areas of the island, in some cases fairly regularly, but, as in other parts of the country, it has been far more severe this year. There is no instant solution, but the rivers, such as the eastern Yar, have been neglected. There has been a lack of desilting—desilting, not dredging—and bushes and trees have been allowed to grow on the riverbanks. These mistakes must be corrected on an annual basis.
	In urban areas, however, there have been quite new experiences. The unprecedented rainfall has led to more than 120 homes and businesses being flooded across many parts of the island, including along some main roads, such as in East Cowes and Binstead during the early hours of Christmas eve, and in places such as Cowes, Carisbrooke, Newport and Ryde.
	In some cases, problems were exacerbated by narrow pipework, which was unable to cope with the extra volumes of water, and floodwater rushed through a densely populated area, reaching the height of windowsills inside people’s homes. In other cases, flooding was due to the extreme volume of water combining with a high tide, including in central Newport, in the street in which I live, Sea street.
	Many local flood group meetings have taken place across the island. Would you join me, Madam Deputy Speaker, in paying tribute to the many islanders, as well our neighbours in the west country and the south of England, who have pulled together to help and support one another through these very difficult times?

Bob Stewart: I very much thank my hon. Friend for giving way. There has been a problem in my constituency in places such as Courtfield Rise and Sparrows Den, not with water on the surface, but with water underneath in the water table coming up and seeping through the ground. We cannot think of a way to stop that.

Andrew Turner: It is difficult to stop—in fact, it is impossible. Occasionally, the Army was on the Isle of Wight, ready to act to tackle the problems that people were experiencing.
	A more deep-seated issue from our point of view is the irreversible damage to land stability, which has caused significant problems across the island. To name just a few: the west Wight beauty spot, Headon Warren; the cliff fall and collapse of part of the road in Shanklin; and, in particular, the landslide along the Undercliff. I spoke on the telephone to a constituent, Barry Thwaites at his Undercliff home. He was concerned about subsidence. When I got there, part of his garden had fallen away, the next-door bungalow had partly collapsed and his neighbours were moving out.
	To the west of Mr Thwaites’s home, the A3055 was closed, as it was under repair following a previous collapse. To the east, about a quarter of a mile away, all that remained of the road was a strip about 3 or 4 feet wide over a length of about 60 yards. The other
	side of the road had fallen to a depth of about 20 feet. Unsurprisingly, the neighbours were concerned, and there are fears that more properties may well follow.
	Residents have now been advised to leave their homes for their own safety, and all but two of them have now moved. They face a worrying and uncertain future, not knowing when or even if they will be able to move back into their homes. For many of them, their home is everything they have worked for for their whole life.
	Measures have quite rightly been announced to help householders and businesses protect homes and buildings against future damage from flood water. However, the insurance companies must make it an absolute priority to help householders and small businesses.
	I should also like to mention the Totland sea wall. A specialist report from Mott Macdonald has identified the fact that the damage was caused by exceptionally heavy rainfall during the winter of 2012. Residents fear that with no effective protection from the sea their homes at the top of the cliff will be at risk. Those same residents will feel it unfair that damage caused by heavy rainfall in 2013 is dealt with by the Government, but not damage due to heavy rainfall in 2012. Will the Minister tell me and other islanders what will be done to address the long-term and deep-seated issues that arise as an indirect consequence of the unprecedented rainfall?

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Before I call the next speaker, I must explain to the House that my arithmetic is not wrong, but when Members take interventions, the time limit for speeches increases. Speeches have been considerably in excess of eight minutes, so I have to reduce the time limit to seven minutes.

Hugh Bayley: It is right to begin with the human cost of flooding. My constituency is no stranger to flooding, and the devastation to home owners and businesses is incredible, which is why we need a clear policy, supported and understood by Members on both sides of the House, whichever party is in government, that gives the public confidence that the Government will provide the investment in flood protection that is necessary to minimise the risks.
	In his speech the Secretary of State seemed to make the case that because a substantial number of Government Back Benchers got up to thank him for putting investment into flood protection measures, all was fine. [Interruption.] He says he did not mean that, but he certainly advanced the argument that many people were grateful for flood protection measures. So, too, am I. We had a hiatus with one particular scheme in York after the new Government came in, but it is now going ahead, thanks to funding from the Environment Agency and our local City of York council. But the budget for flood alleviation measures has fallen from the time this Government came to power in 2010 from something like £650 million a year to something like £550 million a year. There would be more Members getting to their feet to thank the Secretary of State, as I have done and as other Members have done, if that additional £100 million a year had been spent.
	Back on 9 January at DEFRA questions the Secretary of State claimed falsely that the coalition Government were spending more on flood protection than the Labour Government had spent. I challenged him, quoting figures that his Department had given to me in answer to a parliamentary question in July last year, pointing out that spending was in fact down by £113 million from what it was at the time of the general election. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs gratuitously accused me of being a slow learner, because I had the cheek to challenge his slippery figures, and he repeated his bogus claim that
	“this Government are providing more”—
	for flood protection—
	“than any previous Government in the current spending review.—[Official Report, 9 January 2014; Vol. 573, c. 440.]
	I was appalled at this statement. I tabled a further parliamentary question which was answered by the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson). He gave me a different set of figures, but they confirmed a fall of about £100 million since the general election. I asked the House of Commons Library’s statisticians to comment on the figures that I had received, and they concluded:
	“Departmental spending on flood defences in 2011-15 will be lower than it was in 2007-11 in both nominal and real terms”.
	I therefore went to the UK Statistics Authority to ask whether it agreed with the House of Commons statisticians’ analysis or with DEFRA’s. I quote from the reply that I received last week from the chairman of the authority, Sir Andrew Dilnot. He said:
	“The Statistics Authority’s own analysis of the available figures concurs with the conclusions of the note prepared for you by officials in the House of Commons, attached to your letter and subsequently reproduced in a published analytical article. We agree with their finding that, as at January 2014, Government funding for flood defences was expected to be lower in both nominal and real terms during the current spending period than during the last spending period.”
	In order to justify his bogus and misleading claims, the Secretary of State did four things which no professional statistician would do: he selected particular time periods which favoured his case; he included estimates for future projected expenditure, when we do not know whether that will actually be spent or not; he added projected and unconfirmed estimates of private investments in flood protection, and showed them as Government expenditure; and he gave cash figures without showing that these were reduced when one took account of inflation.
	The Secretary of State’s figures were unprofessional, massaged and spun. This is what Sir Andrew Dilnot had to say about them in his letter to me:
	“Defra does not publish figures on flood defence spending as official statistics. There is therefore no obligation for Defra to comply with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics in relation to these figures. However, given the salience of these figures and the public interest in them, it is my view that it would better serve the public good if Defra were to consider publishing official statistics on expenditure by the relevant organisations on aspects of flooding and coastal erosion management”.
	There is a solution to the problem of slippery figures changing from one parliamentary answer to another. It is clear that DEFRA cannot be trusted to provide truthful figures in-house. In future, figures on flood protection spending should be provided as official statistics,
	produced in a quality-assured way and issued by the independent and trustworthy UK Statistics Authority. It is clear that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs misled the public, this House and the Prime Minister, who has been repeating his figures—

Eleanor Laing: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not mean to accuse a Government Minister of misleading the House.

Hugh Bayley: Well, he gave figures that are being contested by the independent UK Statistics Authority. I wish him a speedy recover—

Eleanor Laing: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can find a different way of phrasing the point he wishes to make.

Hugh Bayley: I just have found a different way of phrasing it.
	I wish the Secretary of State a speedy recovery, but when he returns he should make a statement to the House to apologise for inadvertently misleading us and to confirm that figures issued on flood protection will in future be provided as official statistics from the UK Statistics Authority. [Interruption.] If he wants to apologise to me for his gratuitous insult, I will accept an apology at that time.

Eleanor Laing: Order. I do not need advice from Members on the time limit—I can count.

David Heath: Sadly, in Somerset we are used to flooding. After last year’s floods, which we thought were a one-in-100-year event, it is dismaying—that is an understatement—to see even worse flooding this year. We can cope with three feet of water for three weeks, but not 10 feet of water for 10 weeks. To put it in context, if we flooded the City of London, the City of Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea, Camden and Islington, that would still be smaller than the area currently flooded in my county. Although we have now managed to open Monks Leaze Clyse, the River Sowy is flowing and some of the biggest pumps we have ever seen in Somerset are working, it will nevertheless be weeks before we remove the floodwater.
	I would like to offer my heartfelt thanks on behalf of my constituents to the people working for the Environment Agency, the internal drainage boards, the police and fire services, the Royal Marines and the local councils, who have been doing sterling work. I would also like to thank all the volunteers and the huge number of people who have donated to the Somerset Community Foundation to help those facing hardship as a result of the flooding. I thank the volunteers from the Flooding on the Levels Action Group for their sterling work in my constituency and the farmers from across the country who, as the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) said, have been sending forage to our farmers. It is very much appreciated.
	I would also like to thank DEFRA Ministers, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister for coming to Somerset, seeing the situation for themselves
	and then acting on the basis of what they saw. As a result, we have had not only a very much enhanced crisis reaction, but the £10 million fund for farmers, the fund for small businesses affected, the tax and business rate relief and so on. That is very good news.
	We are less pleased with the number of myths that have been propounded about Somerset, often by armchair experts who suddenly know all about the hydrology of the levels. Some of those myths have been pernicious. Some have been made in contrary directions. For example, some people have said that everything will be all right if we dredge, but it will not, as the Secretary of State said earlier. Dredging will not suddenly empty the levels or prevent flooding in future. Equally, those who say that dredging makes no different are talking nonsense, in my view. The fact that our rivers—the Parrett and the Tone, in particular—are at 60% of capacity means that we cannot turn on the pumps in large parts of my constituency because there is nowhere for the water to go. It means that the flooding starts earlier, stays longer and covers a greater area.
	Equally, some people said, “If you dredge the river, it will turn into an uncontrollable torrent.” Those people had clearly never seen the River Parrett. It is probably the slowest river in the whole of western Europe. It drops 1 foot every mile; it is not going to turn into an uncontrollable torrent. We have also heard that the silting problems on the Parrett come from upstream, when in fact most of the silt is deposited by the very large tidal flow on the 18 miles or so of the river that is tidal. Although there is a contribution from upstream, that is where the main problem lies.
	Why are we in this position? It is not because of purposeful negligence on the part of the Environment Agency, but for 20 years now it has been pursuing a policy with which I profoundly disagree. It has been doing that for two reasons. The first reason, which is perfectly valid in Treasury terms, is the cost-benefit return on investment that favours the protection of big cities and towns. I understand that, but, as a Somerset man, I do not see why we should be left out. The other reason is the heresy that sees the rivers as the area of environmental focus rather than the very precious ecology of the levels between the rivers. The rivers are the way of getting the water away from areas that are of vital importance.
	We have been sent away to produce a 10-year action plan, and we are very near to completing it. I do not want to pre-empt it, but I will be very surprised if it does not include the dredging for which we have already issued the licences. Just as important is the maintenance of that dredging year on year. In that regard, we will need some significant changes to the revenue stream for local authorities and the internal drainage boards to enable them to do the job. We also need to deal with whole-river catchment. We need upstream measures, for which I hope we will use pillar 2 money within the common agricultural policy in order to retain more water in upstream areas. We need reforestation, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane); changes in cropping, because that will contribute as well; and sustainable urban drainage systems in our towns so as to prevent run-off. We must consider a barrage or a sluice on the River Parrett to prevent the tidal surge that deposits so much water and silt upstream.
	We need to revisit our emergency responses so that they are quicker and more adept at dealing with the circumstances in which we find ourselves. We have been learning as we go, and communications are much better now than when this emergency started. However, I wonder whether we would have had the same attention in Somerset had the flooding of the Thames valley happened first. I was very pleased that we were able to make the rapid progress we did.

Damian Collins: Will my hon. Friend give way?

David Heath: Yes, because it will give me an extra minute.

Damian Collins: Does my hon. Friend agree that we also need to look at co-ordination between bodies such as UK Power Networks and the Environment Agency to make sure that when power goes down it is restored to pumping systems, in particular, as a priority so that we can keep the water moving?

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We need to revisit the whole issue of resilience in a big way.
	The transport links to the south-west, which are tenuous at any time, have now been shown to be inadequate—not only the railway system but the roads system. The A303 is completely incapable of doing the job that we ask of it as a strategic route to the south-west. Where else in the country would the main road to the county town—the A361, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne)—be flooded and closed for months? For months we have not had access from central Somerset to the county town. The village of Muchelney—the name gives a clue, because “mucheln ey” means “big island”—has been cut off for a very long time. The bridge between Long Load and Long Sutton has been closed for a long time. These situations are hugely disruptive to people’s normal lives. Unless we can address some of those issues, we are not doing the job that is expected of us by our constituents.
	Lastly, we need resilience at household level and at community level. Points were made earlier about equipping people individually to put in measures to prevent ingress of water into their houses and to make villages better able to deal with the problem. Of course, the planning issues that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) mentioned are fundamental as well. It is quite extraordinary that in some of the flooded villages in Somerset one sees bungalows nestling under the level of the river next to them. One wonders why people would build bungalows below the water table, and yet they have done so and we need to address how to deal with that in a much more satisfactory way.
	The fact is that the Somerset levels are a man-made environment. The area is not a floodplain, as some people call it; it is reclaimed inland sea. Every bit of water we remove from Somerset has to be pumped over the banks of the river to a river that is higher than the surrounding land in order to get it away. That means we need special measures to deal with our special circumstances. A one-size-fits-all policy from the Environment Agency is never going to work for us.
	I am proud of the stoicism and practicality of my constituents in immensely damaging and difficult circumstances. I am glad that the Secretary of State indicated that he will not oppose the motion, because I would have voted for it.

Nicholas Dakin: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath).
	The floods and scenes we have seen have been devastating and awful, as is the cost to individuals, families, homes and businesses. My first experience of really bad floods in my constituency was due to a burst pipe last October, which led to 14 homes on Ville road in the centre of Scunthorpe being very badly flooded. I visited those homes to see the devastation and they illustrated how bad floods are: they turn people’s homes upside down.
	I pay tribute to the response of the Humberside fire authority, which came out in the middle of the night, got the situation fast under control and made a real difference, because there could have been much more damage. Anglian Water has responded well and is working hard with the people affected to try to ensure proper and appropriate support through these difficult times. Although there are still, even now, compensation issues, I believe they are being worked through properly. I am pleased that North Lincolnshire council and Anglian Water are working together, along with Severn Trent Water, to ensure that that is less likely to be a problem in future.
	I have done a lot of work on the industrial river that runs through the heart of my constituency. Bottesford Beck might not sound like a river, but it is a big one and in recent years its levels have risen significantly and become a threat to farmland—it was not flooded previously, but has been consistently flooded over the past two years—and to households. As a result of an initiative by the Friends of Bottesford Beck to draw people together, Tata, the Environment Agency, North Lincolnshire council, Holme Hall golf club and local farmers are working together to bring pressure to bear. I am pleased that last month the Environment Agency agreed that there should be a pilot project to de-silt Bottesford Beck. That needs to happen in order to prevent some of the problems faced by the local community, particularly at the farm of Philip Marshall, which has been damaged. The situation has had a negative effect on his livelihood.
	I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State, who is back in his place, say that he was determined to make sure that farmers affected by flooding will be helped and supported. I hope that help will be available to farmers wherever they may be in this country, including Philip Marshall, who has been affected by the flooding of Bottesford Beck.
	It had been hoped that the pilot would go ahead shortly, but unfortunately it looks as if it might be delayed because processes need to be properly followed and there is a balance to be struck between environmental tensions. Given that the fish breeding season begins in the middle of March, the de-silting pilot might not be able to take place until the middle of June. That is causing frustration and exasperation locally, but I hope that will be worked through.
	The recent flooding event that had the biggest impact on the community I represent was the tidal surge from the Humber and the Trent at the beginning of December. It affected communities from Barrow Haven in the north, which is represented by the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), to East Butterwick in my constituency of Scunthorpe. The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) is in his place. Communities in his constituency were the worst affected, and he showed good leadership in relationto those difficulties at that time. Such communities do not work only within constituencies, and the impact on businesses such as Reeds country hotel or Cemex is felt by not only my constituents but those of other hon. Members.
	I was delighted by the response of the local community to those difficulties. Individuals responded extremely well, as did businesses, such as the Wortley House hotel, which provided accommodation for the people affected, and local supermarkets, which provided food. There was a real community response to the challenge of the moment. The day after the floods, I visited the Pods—the sports and leisure complex in the heart of Scunthorpe—where the families affected, particularly those from the Burringham area, were seeking the support provided by North Lincolnshire council.
	It is interesting that at times of difficulty or distress, the people affected do not look to Serco, A4e or Capita, but are pleased to see the Environment Agency, the local council, the firemen and, of course, the Army, which has recently been involved on certain occasions. That is a reminder of the value of public services and the role they play.
	I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister say that money will be no object to the communities affected. I hope that the Minister will confirm in his response to the debate that that commitment applies to communities such as north Lincolnshire, as well as others up and down the country.
	BBC “Question Time” was recently held in Scunthorpe. Interestingly, local people expressed the concern that when such things happen in our unfashionable area, they are not always noticed by the Westminster village, but when they happen closer to this place, they are front-page news. It is important that this House demonstrates that it is concerned to support the farmers affected.

Martin Vickers: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nicholas Dakin: I am very happy to give way to my honourable neighbour.

Martin Vickers: The hon. Gentleman is making a valuable speech, but will he acknowledge that on the Saturday following the 5 December surge, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs visited both my constituency and the north bank?

Nicholas Dakin: I absolutely recognise that fact, which was a good response by the Government at the time. I was just replaying people’s concerns, which remind us of the importance of our making a real effort in this place to demonstrate that we care about such things wherever they happen. In particular, many more dwellings or homes were affected in the north Lincolnshire area
	before Christmas than were later affected in some areas that have had much more public attention. It is important for all of us—as Team North Lincolnshire always does across the park—to bang the drum for the people and communities we represent.

Steve Brine: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin). There is a Team North Lincolnshire, which Team Hampshire on these Benches will do our best to follow.
	I have to say that the situation on the ground in my constituency is improving, but the crisis is far from over. Everything we face there and everywhere I have been in the past few weeks has been described as and compared with the events of 2000, when we were last badly hit by flooding. People have been watching the water and river levels to see how these floods compare with those of that year.
	I have not been on piste or on beach during the past few weeks; I have been in my constituency to help out where I could. The village of Kings Worthy has been hit particularly badly, with many road closures that have caused huge inconvenience to local people. In the village of Headbourne Worthy, huge groundwater issues have caused sewage problems and a huge loss of business for local pubs and the Good Life garden centre. In the village of Sutton Scotney, which I visited last weekend, several people have had to leave their homes, and will be looking for the help outlined earlier by the Secretary of State. The village of Hursley has suffered huge issues with rising groundwater and sewage levels; when I visited it, raw sewage was coming down the street. I have learned about the ruthlessness of water over the past few weeks. Water will find the quickest, most ruthless route to the bottom. It does not discriminate between the things that it goes through or across in getting to the bottom. I have seen the devastating impact of that in the village of Littleton over the past few weeks. I have also seen it in the centre of the great city of Winchester, which the River Itchen flows through.
	Over the past few weeks in my constituency, I have seen an incredible example of what the Prime Minister would call the big society. Communities have come together and responded fantastically. I will name-check a few people because they deserve it. In the village of Twyford, a gentleman called David Sullivan gets up very early and does a water level reading, which he e-mails to me. He has done that every day for the past fortnight. David Sullivan, Angela Forder-Stent of the parish council and the rest of the team in Twyford have been phenomenal. Parish clerk Sue Hedges and Councillor Stephen Godfrey in Sutton Scotney have worked tirelessly. Harry Whorwood and Giles Vigor-Robertson in Headbourne Worthy have basically given up work over the past few weeks to protect their communities.
	I am name-checking those people and talking about their community spirit because it shows the response that communities can give to the devastation that flooding can bring, which many Members have described. The stoicism and pragmatism that I have seen have been remarkable. From the constituents I have met over recent days, I would say that the older they are, the greater their stoicism and pragmatism is, because they have seen it all before.
	The motion mentions the Pitt report, which I have of course read. It is true that some of the recommendations of the Pitt report have not been implemented. That is regrettable and we need to see to that. It stated in particular that multi-agency working must be better next time. In my constituency, the multi-agency approach has worked. The Environment Agency, Hampshire county council, Winchester city council, the parishes, Hampshire fire and rescue service and, of course, the Army have been involved. I was in Kings Worthy one morning during half term last week trying to move 1,000 sandbags, when 10 chaps from the Royal Signals at Bulford turned up to help. I can tell the House that, with my shoulders, they were very welcome.
	The multi-agency working has been brilliant and responsive at all times. The Environment Agency has received a lot of criticism over the past few weeks. Some of it has been deserved in other parts of the country, but that is for other Members to touch on. In my area, the Environment Agency has more than risen to the challenge. Mike O’Neill deserves a mention. He even went door-to-door with me in parts of central Winchester to talk to and reassure residents. He deserves great credit for that. At one point, water was flowing down the appropriately named Water lane in Winchester, which the River Itchen runs past, at 12,000 litres per second—very fast—towards the ancient city mill. That was terrifying for residents. However, the multi-agency working and the good thinking of the Environment Agency prevented flooding in hundreds of homes. It deserves our thanks. The agencies have played a bad hand very well.
	Upstream from Winchester, the Royal Engineers lowered several hundred 1-tonne bags of gravel into the River Itchen from the bridge of the M3 motorway to restrict its flow. That has not been done before. It slowed the Itchen and held it back. It flooded some farmland in the village of Easton in the Itchen valley, but farmers were happy to allow that to help save Winchester. It worked. That was a roll of the dice by the Environment Agency. When Chris Smith came to Winchester yesterday, he went to the River Itchen and saw the work that had been done. I know that he was impressed and I thank him and his team for their support in doing that work.
	In closing, I am concerned about the bids that the Environment Agency has asked Hampshire county council, as the risk management authority in my area, to put together for the six-year plan for 2015-16 to 2020-21. It is good that a long-term plan is being put in place, but the process is incredibly rushed. The council is under incredible pressure to put it together. Just today, two parish councillors in my area have told me about meetings that they will have in the next few weeks to consider the response to the flooding crisis.
	We need time to get this right. Of course we do not need to drag it out through the whole year until next winter comes around quickly and we are back in this situation again. However, my constituents want to know that proposals that miss the deadline because of proper consideration of what we need following the floods will not miss the boat, and that we will not be told that they have missed out as a result. I hope that the Minister—who is nodding—hears that point.
	In conclusion, there is always more the Government can do, and of course if there were an endless pot of money we could do everything we want. However, the relief package that has been put in place and administered so efficiently by Councillor Humby and his colleagues at Winchester city council is welcome, and it will be made use of by me and my constituents.

Chris Williamson: I start by concurring with everything said by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn). He was entirely right when he drew a comparison between his constituency and what was happening in Somerset. As I think the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) acknowledged, to some extent farming practices are responsible for the extent of the flooding we have seen. In addition, however, the Government’s own ideological obsession with deregulation is responsible, and I will tell the House why. As hon. Members may know, maize cultivation is now a significant feature of the British countryside in many areas, and it is used for animal feed and—as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West pointed out—for biofuel.
	The problem with maize cultivation, however, is that it has a significant impact on land’s capacity to hold water. When Labour was in office we recognised that, and back in the mid-2000s, I think, we implemented soil conservation measures to take account of that, linking subsidies to farmers to that sort of conservation necessity. When this Government came to power, with their obsession with deregulation, they specifically exempted maize cultivation from all soil conservation measures. That seems absolutely crazy. That crop causes the most floods and does the most damage, yet it is completely unregulated—it is a crazy example of barmy deregulation. As well as investment in flood defences and dredging in certain circumstances, it is vital that the Government make clear the importance of that issue, and take the necessary steps to ensure that sustainable land use is a feature of ensuring—as the Prime Minister said—that the Government secure a sustainable country for the future.
	Let me say a little about my constituency, which thankfully was spared the floods on this occasion. According to recent data, 3,372 homes in my constituency are at risk of flooding, and 1,370 are at significant risk. It was really just luck that the rain fell where it did, because had it fallen on the River Derwent catchment area, my constituents would be counting the cost of flooding to their homes. I remember back in the 1960s when around Christmas the homes at risk in my constituency sustained the sort of flooding that we are seeing in other parts of the country today.
	We know that funding for the “Our City Our River” flood defence scheme in Derby was substantially cut by this Government when they came to office. That has caused considerable anxiety for my constituents, and made it difficult for many of them to obtain flood insurance. The Prime Minister said that money was no object and that the Government would invest in securing a sustainable country for the future, so I hope that the funds necessary for flood defences in my constituency will be made available. It is no good simply saying, “Well, they can be completed by relying on the private sector and using the funds that it will put
	in place”. We need to get the private sector to the table, and meanwhile the rain might fall and the floods may arrive.
	We know that there are a number of climate change deniers on the Government Benches and in the Cabinet itself—indeed, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is a climate change denier—but it seems obvious to me, from the events of the past few months, that climate change is happening. We are seeing more extreme weather events, and, as I have already pointed out, Derby has been lucky.
	It is important to acknowledge the heroic and innovative work undertaken by our fire and rescue services. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has referred to some of that excellent work and other hon. Members have mentioned it in their contributions too. Firefighters have been tireless in their efforts to rescue people and to protect certain areas from being inundated. Without their efforts, residents in areas afflicted by these awful floods would have experienced even more devastation. The Pitt review, which was published some time ago, called clearly for a statutory duty to be imposed on fire authorities to tackle flooding and to be the lead bodies in these circumstances. Recommendation 39 of the Pitt review states:
	“The Government should urgently put in place a fully funded national capability for flood rescue, with Fire and Rescue Authorities playing a leading role, underpinned as necessary by a statutory duty.”
	I hope the Minister will indicate whether the Government are considering implementing that recommendation.
	In addition to adapting to the growing problem of severe weather events and increased flooding, I hope we will see investment in renewable energy. We need to find ways of generating energy in a more sustainable way. We also need to reduce demand for energy, as that would have the twin benefit of tackling fuel poverty. Investing in an energy efficiency regime to tackle fuel poverty would make an important contribution to reducing demand for energy. Finally, in addition to reducing development on floodplains, the Government ought to consider making developers responsible for any damage caused to flooded properties for, say, 20 years after homes have been built.

Caroline Nokes: Romsey is located on the banks of the River Test, a world-renowned chalk stream. Too many times in the past few months the river has been an unwelcome visitor in too many people’s homes. Our problem is not just the river, which is ground fed, but the springs that have popped up in many places; the ingress of groundwater into the foul drainage systems, causing the drains to fail and rivers of sewage to flow through the streets of villages like Chilbolton and Longparish; and surface water flooding, which we experienced in Romsey from Christmas eve until well into the new year. For householders along the Causeway in Romsey, there have been weeks of misery: homes being permanently pumped out, an access road undermined by the sheer weight of water, and the fear that access to the crucial pumping station for the town would not be maintained.
	The situation has not all been negative, however. There have been phenomenal examples of community
	spirit and pulling together in a crisis. I have praised them before, but I will do so again: Romsey’s amazing retained firefighters gave up much of their Christmas and were among the first to be out there again when the February floods hit. They were indefatigably cheerful, even when their road closures signs were ignored and damaged. The Army and the Navy arrived in Romsey the week before last and designed the most amazing device—colloquially known as the “cat flap”—to divert water from Fishlake stream back into the main body of the River Test, and to lay 40,000 sandbags at strategic points around the town. They worked seamlessly with the borough and county councils, the Environment Agency and the emergency services, and were greeted with relief wherever they went.
	However much I wax lyrical on how things were pulled together to aid Romsey and the surrounding villages in their hour of need, there are crucial lessons that we must learn. Little was known about the bank of the Fishlake stream until it was at crisis point, so work to identify at-risk areas has to happen and it has to happen now. There are some great local examples across Hampshire of communities with flood action plans and flood wardens where greater damage was averted. We now have to replicate that work everywhere.
	People have spoken at length of the dangers of building on floodplains, and I agree. However, in many instances the houses are already there, so although we must avoid adding to that housing stock, we simply cannot abandon the houses already there. Protection is needed, and although I do not pretend to be an engineer or a drainage expert, when the water has subsided, we must work out what can best be done to avoid this happening again. Sadly, in many parts of my constituency the water is still rising, particularly the groundwater, unlike around the River Itchen where the water levels are falling.
	When it comes to planning, we have to look at the existing infrastructure and the impact on surface water drainage from having additional roof tiles in previously open green spaces that acted as natural sponges to rainfall. I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), who is no longer in his place, but we cannot look just at floodplains. We have to look at the catchment areas, which can also make a contribution. Where there has been development at Abbotswood on the edge of Romsey—a significant distance and uphill from the natural floodplain—there is a clear problem with surface water drainage flooding existing properties that are further down the hill. Over Christmas and new year there were huge problems in Winchester road in Romsey, with a combined drainage system simply overwhelmed by the amount of water, causing foul drainage flooding of homes. That might be regarded as totally separate to the subsequent flooding caused by the River Test, but the misery for residents is no less.
	I spent last Saturday morning looking at the defences that the military and the Environment Agency have put in place to prevent further flooding in Romsey from the fragile bank of the Fishlake stream. I would like to put on record my thanks to Lieutenant Colonel Fossey and his team, who worked phenomenally hard to protect the town from further flooding. As one would expect, conversation inevitably turned to the future and what needs to be done to safeguard Romsey in the long term.
	I am the first to say that now is not the time for a knee-jerk reaction when deciding what would be best. The local authorities and the Environment Agency need to assemble experts and decide, not at a time of crisis but when the waters have abated somewhat, and they need reasonable time scales in which to do it.
	There are certainly some thoughts already on whether land needs to be found that can be safely flooded without damage to housing. Attention needs to be turned to development and where new houses can best be placed away from floodplains in a way that will not impact on already creaking infrastructure. If necessary, we need to revisit housing numbers and perhaps take a view that some areas simply cannot accommodate more building. The water courses and drainage systems further up the Test valley from Romsey also need to be considered. I do not know whether extra capacity or deepening and widening the stream through King’s Somborne or the Wallop brook would help. Presumably that would run the risk of sending water further downstream to Romsey even faster and exacerbating the problems there.
	Longparish, Chilbolton and King’s Somborne have all had 24/7 tankering operations to clear surface water from the drainage system, but it is a drop in the ocean. There are still people in Longparish and Chilbolton who cannot flush their loos, have a shower or wash their clothes, and this is Hampshire in the 21st century. I appreciate that the solution will be expensive and require careful planning, but if we are to experience longer, wetter winters in future and if this year is just a taste of what is to come, we have no choice.

Lilian Greenwood: As many hon. Members have made clear in powerful speeches this afternoon, the floods have had a devastating impact on their communities. I am sure the whole House’s thoughts are with those who face personal loss and those who are now confronted with an uncertain wait and do not know when normality can return. Our thoughts are also with the workers who are straining to clear floodwater and repair our bridges, roads and railways. They have done an outstanding job under great pressure, and we owe them a debt of gratitude.
	I would like to start by saying a few words about the enormous damage that has been done over the past two months to the rail network. Great Western services have been severed south of Exeter since Brunel’s sea wall at Dawlish was washed away. Flooding has disrupted services in Wales. Crewe station was evacuated after suffering damage, and landslips have led to cancellations and delays in the south of England. At Bridgwater, in the Somerset levels, the line from Taunton to Bristol is still under several feet of water. Almost 300 Network Rail sites have been flooded.
	Even when the water has cleared, further damage can follow, as embankments collapse. Many such earthworks date from the Victorian era and not enough research has been done on their stability. There have been 50 landslips in Kent alone over recent weeks. My constituents in Nottingham have also experienced delays, following a landslip between Chesterfield and Sheffield, and in the south-west, embankments have given way outside Exeter, compounding the damage caused at Dawlish.
	Ministers cannot always prevent disruption, but they can put more pressure on train operators to provide timely and accurate information to passengers and open up first-class seating to alleviate overcrowding. The railways are a vital economic artery for the south-west. While the immediate challenge is to reconnect those rail services, we must also question whether the south-west’s rail infrastructure can withstand future pressures. The Transport Secretary has given Network Rail the task of producing a report on the future of the Dawlish link, considering “all the options”, and we will hold him to his pledge. The report is due by July. Can the Minister assure us that it will be made publicly available?
	Sadly, such reassurances need to be put on the record because of the lack of transparency on the Government’s part, particularly in regard to the funding provided. Following the extreme weather in late 2012 and early 2013, the Government announced that they would fund the greater part of a Network Rail package of improvements in the Exeter area: they would provide £26 million, and Network Rail £5 million. However, that funding disappeared in the autumn statement. The Peninsula Rail Task Force group of local authorities wrote to the Transport Secretary on 27 January, stating that the funding’s
	“omission from the Autumn Statement has…become a cause for real and sustained concern.”
	On 12 February, the £31 million was re-announced as new funding, although yesterday the Secretary of State seemed to suggest to the Transport Committee that it had been the same money all along.
	At best, Ministers have failed to communicate their intentions to local authorities, causing anxiety to those who have to plan locally for improvements in the south-west’s flood resilience; but if this is indeed new funding, as we were told just two weeks ago, they must explain what will be cut, or how more money will be made from passengers, to make up the balance.
	It is already clear that Network Rail has been left with an extensive bill. The south-west’s local authorities estimate that last winter’s weather caused about £140 million worth of damage; this year’s storms have cost Network Rail about £170 million, and that figure may yet rise. As Network Rail must find 20% efficiency savings over the next five years, it will not be easy for it to absorb a further loss of nearly £200 million—and that does not include the cost of the additional resilience studies that the Government have ordered or further resilience measures in Dawlish.
	The Minister dodged my question in Westminster Hall this morning, but I am going to give him another chance. First, can he assure the House that projects will not be cancelled or pushed back beyond 2019 as a result of the additional expenditure? Secondly, if Network Rail concludes that a new line is needed, or that substantial improvement works should be carried out on the Dawlish sea wall, will those works be funded by central Government, or will they be paid for out of Network Rail’s already pressured budget?
	Of course, local authorities whose budgets have already been severely cut have had to commit emergency funding, much of which is not reclaimable under the Bellwin scheme. We have been told by the Prime Minister that “money is no object” when it comes to meeting the cost of the floods, but two weeks after he made that statement, we are little closer to knowing what he meant. For all
	the claims that investment in flood defences has increased during the current Parliament, that is correct only if inflation and local authority funding are ignored, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane). We need a different approach, based on long-term planning and proper regard for the scientific evidence. That is why Labour has set out proposals for a national infrastructure commission, with strategic flood defences at the heart of its remit.
	We are living with the reality of climate change, and the flooding over the past two months has brought the scale of that challenge into sharp focus; but, as part of the Prime Minister’s accommodation with the radical right of his party, he has allowed the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to become a voice for scepticism within the Government. Preparing for and managing flood risk has been dropped as one of DEFRA’s priorities, and, as I mentioned earlier, the Government’s draft national policy statement on roads and railways contains no reference to ensuring that our transport network is resilient. Budgets have been slashed, staff cuts planned, and scientific advice ignored. Progress reports on the Pitt Review’s recommendations have been scrapped, and exaggerated claims have been made in Parliament about spending on flood defences.
	All that amounts to a poor record for a Prime Minister who once said that he wanted to lead the greenest Government ever. The Prime Minister may have changed his colours, but Britain still needs action to protect its transport networks and communities that are at risk of flooding. With clearer leadership and carefully planned, long-term investment, we can be in a much stronger position when Britain next faces floods on this scale.

Robin Walker: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), my constituency has been very heavily affected by the flooding on the River Severn. Although that has not been going on for as long as the flooding in the Somerset levels, it has been spectacular and done much damage. To give an example of the scale of the flooding, this afternoon, the gauge at Worcester stands at 1.4 metres. Just a couple of weeks ago, it was 5.5 metres. The Environment Agency estimated that 518 cubic metres of water per second was trying, and often unfortunately failing, to pass under Worcester’s central bridge.
	I welcome the debate and much of the motion, particularly the fact that it thanks the emergency and statutory services for the fantastic work that they did. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) mentioned the Pitt review’s recommendation on co-ordination between statutory and emergency services. What I have seen in Worcester in the past couple of weeks in terms of co-ordination has been a model that others could learn from.
	Two weeks ago on Monday, I was fortunate to attend a silver command meeting at Worcestershire county council and to witness at first hand all those organisations working together. I apologise if I miss out any of the people in the room at the time, but West Mercia police played a fantastic co-ordinating role. They arranged special patrols to areas that were cut off by the floods and oversaw that effort superbly. The Hereford and
	Worcester fire and rescue service also did a magnificent job. Incidentally, in contrast to some comments made by Opposition Members about fire services not being well placed to provide services, the Hereford and Worcester fire and rescue service told me that it was better equipped and trained for water rescue during these floods than in 2007, when floods hit Worcester severely.
	We have also seen fantastic work by the West Midlands ambulance service and the Environment Agency. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester, I acknowledge that in some areas the agency has been somewhat controversial. In Worcestershire, however, there has been universal acclaim for the agency’s round-the-clock work. Dafydd Evans has been very helpful in keeping me informed. Dave Throup has been upheld as some kind of superhero. He now has a Twitter following of about 1,800—the Dave Throup fan club. That is a celebration not just of his superhuman efforts, but of all those who have worked very hard during the floods. I salute them all.
	Worcestershire county council put huge effort into keeping the city open for business and pushing to get the bridge reopened as soon as humanly possible. People were doing that in the silver command meeting that I attended. However, sadly, it had to be closed again as the river rose to record highs. Whereas in previous floods, when our bridge was closed, we had to call in aid from the military, who drove their vehicles through the floods to keep the city tied together, the council was able in this instance to run a successful bus service. The buses drove through the floods on New road, which cut off the main city bridge, and kept the two sides of the city tied together. That won great acclaim from city centre businesses. It helped loads of people to get to work, children to get to school and made a big difference. The staff worked almost around the clock and in appalling weather conditions as the rain came down. I pay tribute to them.
	Keeping the city open for business was a key priority throughout, and I acclaim the work of the business improvement district in Worcester, which ran a successful open for business campaign. Indeed, I am willing to commend the Labour mayor in the city for her work in supporting that campaign. That was positive, although, as I will come to, Labour in Worcester has slightly shot itself in the foot in its efforts since to support the campaign.
	I want to mention the military support that we had in Worcester, which arrived while I was in the city. I was pleased, particularly as the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, to be able to welcome the 1st Battalion the Royal Irish Regiment when it came to the city. The regiment showed fantastic professionalism and excellent co-ordination with the civil authorities. I was particularly pleased yesterday to receive a very impressive letter from the regiment’s commanding officer saying how impressed they had been by the overall efforts they had seen. It would also be remiss of me not to mention the local media, who did a fantastic job in keeping people informed in Worcester.
	I welcome the fact that the Government are trying to help those people whose homes have been flooded. There are about 40 such homes in my constituency, and for those people, the floods are tragic and terrible. The number is much smaller than it was in 2007, however, and we should welcome the fact that the flood defences
	have made a significant difference, especially the £1 million defences on Hylton road, which have protected a large number of homes and businesses in Worcester.
	Unfortunately, there have been reports of sewage in the flood water in residential areas of my constituency. When we think about resilience, we should also look at the sewerage systems, particularly in cities such as Worcester, to ensure that they have sufficient capacity and that we do not find sewage in river flood water in the future. We need to work with Severn Trent Water on that challenge.
	We need to look at resilience in relation to transport. I have mentioned the fact that the Worcester bridge has been closed on several occasions. Our university will soon propose exciting plans for new pedestrian access across the River Severn using disused railway viaducts. They would be a lot cheaper than some of the alternative road plans, and I recommend that the Government look into funding them as part of the resilience programme.
	I welcome the fact that the Government have given business rate rebates to many of the businesses affected by the floods. There is also an extra £10 million for businesses that were not flooded but that were otherwise affected. I am concerned that a lot of businesses will have been affected in that way, and I hope that that amount can be increased in the future.
	Having praised all the statutory services and my local councils, I am very concerned that the Labour-led city council in Worcester voted last night to put up parking charges very substantially. This will hit the high street at a time when it really should be focusing on recovery. It is absolutely the wrong thing to do, and it will undermine so much of the good work that the council has done in recent weeks to show that the city is open for business. I hope that it will recognise the great cross-party work that has been done recently to keep things moving, and that it will rethink that decision.

Diana Johnson: I am pleased that we have this opportunity to discuss flooding today, because 37,7000 homes in my constituency are at risk. I saw the pain, misery and damage caused by flooding when we were hit in Hull in June 2007. At that time, 8,600 households were affected, and 6,300 people had to move into temporary accommodation, including 1,400 who were accommodated in caravans for months afterwards as their homes were dried out, cleaned up and repaired, often after lengthy dealings with insurers.
	I feel very sorry for all those people who are going through the trauma of flooding now. Until people go through it, they do not understand the awfulness of it, and the problems do not end when the floodwaters have receded. The anxiety, distress and depression will carry on for those families for months and years. I have met children who told me that they became anxious when they saw the heavy rain, because they thought that they might have to leave their homes again, or that they would not be able to get to school. I pay tribute to the National Flood Forum for the support that it offers to families after the floodwaters have receded.
	We all recognise the importance of investment in flood defences. After the 2007 floods, I remember the Liberal Democrats, who were in control of the council
	in Hull, complaining that the Labour Government’s increased flood defence spending was not enough. However, it has now been confirmed that flood defence investment has fallen under this Lib Dem-Tory coalition. With estimates for the clear-up and repair costs from the recent flooding running at £1 billion, those cuts look like a classic example of a false economy.
	In December 2013, an estimated 260 homes and businesses in Hull were flooded again following the east coast tidal surge. I want to ask the Government some questions about their response to the recent floods, and their provision of discretionary assistance to homes and businesses hit by that flooding. Initially, there seemed to be lots of Cobra meetings but very little action, whereas in June 2007, Hull heard about the extra flood aid in just two weeks and we had an early visit from the Prime Minister as well. After the December east coast tidal surge, it took two months, and the playing fields of Eton to be flooded, before Hull heard about the extra £5,000 help for homes and businesses.
	Why does the current support for householders go only to home owners and not to tenants? As I understand it, the money has to be spent on flood resilience measures. Will the Minister explain how that will be checked? Will councils also be able to get money for the properties they own? Can every householder pool money to pay for more substantial flood resilience measures, where a local community wants to do that?
	There seemed, again, to be confusion about whether Hull businesses would be covered by the business support scheme and about whether there is a cap on the business support that will be given. The guidance suggests that grants should be about £2,500 and that more than £5,000 should not be given out. Several large manufacturing firms in Hull were flooded, with expensive equipment destroyed. I understand that the council will be allocating the funds, so will it have discretion to offer more help, especially to those types of company that may easily be able to relocate internationally? In addition, why have the Government not applied for European Union assistance for flood-hit communities?
	I have been raising and discussing the issue of flood insurance for many years. Last June, the Government finally announced the Flood Re scheme that is to replace the previous Government’s statement of principles. As we know, Flood Re excludes, retrospectively, homes completed since January 2009.

Chris Ruane: Does my hon. Friend know why it took three years for this Government to settle the Flood Re scheme?

Diana Johnson: I do not know why, but perhaps the Minister will be able to enlighten us. Obviously, the statement of principles ran out last summer and it has had to have a temporary extension until the new Flood Re scheme comes into place in 2015, even though this needed to be sorted out as quickly as possible.
	Let me return to the issue of the exclusions. Leaseholders are excluded from the scheme, as are council tenants and small businesses, including people who run a bed and breakfast from their home. Landlords are not covered, even where there is a jointly owned freehold with each flat owner as a leaseholder. It is not clear whether tenants wanting contents insurance will be covered. There is no answer from the Government on the position
	of home owners or builders who acted in good faith, following all relevant planning guidelines and Environment Agency advice, but find themselves with homes that will now not attract home insurance cover under the Flood Re scheme because they have been built since 2009. Under Flood Re, a home built on 31 December 2008 will be covered whereas a house next door that was built on 1 January 2009 will not be. The scheme seems very arbitrary, and it is also not clear whether Flood Re covers the surface water flooding which we had a problem with in Hull in 2007.
	Worse still, one part of the Government does not seem to know what the other part of the Government is doing. The Treasury and the Department for Communities and Local Government are promoting their Help to Buy scheme heavily in Kingswood in my constituency, an area hit by flooding in 2007; large Help to Buy posters are plastered everywhere. The problem is that the Treasury and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are also signalling that those thousands of new homes being built and sold under their Help to Buy scheme should not have been built in the first place and will not be covered by Flood Re. The Government are getting themselves into real difficulty on this, and the people buying homes under the Help to Buy scheme at the moment will be shocked to know the position the Government are putting them in.
	Clearly, there are some flood-risk areas where building should not happen—areas where there is coastal erosion and outlying areas that will not be helped by flood defence infrastructure.

Dan Rogerson: The hon. Lady has been consistent in raising the issue of the Help to Buy scheme. The scheme operates across the country, and the choice of where to buy a property and on what terms to do so is up to the person who buys it. Of course, the developer will also have gone through a process of developing it. The Government are not encouraging and actively pushing people into buying those particular homes; people are choosing to buy them and use that scheme. So perhaps she needs to give a little clarification on what she is accusing the Government of.

Diana Johnson: I do not know whether it is parliamentary to say this, but I am gobsmacked by that response. I thought the whole aim and purpose of the Government’s scheme was to encourage people to buy a home. It just so happens that 90% of my city is below sea level and on a floodplain, so someone who buys a property in Hull will probably be faced with it not being in the Flood Re scheme, yet the Government are still encouraging people to buy homes there. I am grateful for that at least—they have not abandoned Hull completely—but there is a problem with their Flood Re scheme.
	The National Association of Home Builders estimates that 5 million homes around the country will not be covered by the Flood Re scheme, and the insurance firm Hiscox has in the past few weeks called for the deal to be made universal. As I have said, Hull, 90% of which is a flood risk, is currently protected, but it could be better protected still with more adequate investment and by ensuring access to affordable insurance cover. With that in place, Hull and other flood-risk areas have a viable economic future with a functioning property market and a strong business sector.
	With climate change leading to rising water levels and more frequent volatile weather, the scientific advice is that flooding will occur more regularly in a larger proportion of the country. This small country cannot write off the major towns, cities and areas of farmland that are now at risk of more regular flooding. Yes, there are limits on what we can afford to do, but we need to think too about the limits on what we can afford not to do.
	The free market and little England approach does not equip us to face these issues. Climate change deniers such as those in the UK Independence party also do not help. They want to wreck Hull’s hopes for wind turbine jobs and send them abroad. Some of its members even appear to hold the view that same-sex marriage is responsible for the flooding.
	Let us turn a major problem into an opportunity for economic growth. We could invest in flood defence infrastructure and support renewable energy with a balanced energy policy so that we meet our future energy needs in a way that also combats climate change.

Andrew Percy: It is a pleasure to follow my near neighbour, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson). We both have experience of the 2007 floods—she as a Member of Parliament and myself as a councillor—and a good understanding of flooding in our area.
	It has been an interesting debate, and I have liked a number of contributions. However, some Opposition Members have been more interested in trying to make political points about flood funding rather than in dealing with the recovery in which we are engaged. If they were honest, the reality is that after the devastating flood in 2000, which affected a large part of my constituency, the Government at the time increased flood funding but not to the level that they should have done, although we saw another boost after 2007. If we look at the history of flood funding, we see that we tend to get a boost after a major incident, and then it starts to taper off over a number of years. Sadly, that has been the case for decades. If anything comes out of this, it is perhaps the need for us to take a more long-term sustained approach to flood funding.
	It is also a little bit incredible for Opposition Members to talk about flood defence funding as if they would not have made the same reductions had they won the last general election given their own commitments to cutting the deficit. We just need a bit of honesty from all parts of the House on this.

Chris Ruane: rose—

Andrew Percy: No, I will not give way, because there are others who wish to speak. The flood defence funding issue in my constituency was not related to cancelled schemes. In fact, the improvements that were expected in my area were not scheduled until 2023, and 2028 in many cases. Our flooding was down to a significant tidal surge, which flooded 350 homes in my constituency. As I have said on numerous occasions, that incident coincided with the death of President Nelson Mandela, so it was not top of the six o’clock news. None the less, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural
	Affairs visited, as did the chairman of the Environment Agency. Eleven communities in my constituency were flooded. Some of them, such as Burringham and Keadby, received warnings, but others in South Ferriby and Reedness did not and many people found themselves in quite dangerous situations with water in some cases as high as their waists, and in one case up to their chests. A number of residents were stuck in their properties because they had not been provided with proper warnings.
	We had a public meeting in South Ferriby last Monday night; a couple of hundred people turned out. It was a really well attended and good spirited meeting. One thing residents asked me to take back is the issue of flood warnings. A lot of people are elderly and not on the internet. Large parts of my constituency have internet speeds of about one megabit a fortnight, so it is not possible to get the updates. They did not know a warning had been issued in the morning. We did not have a severe warning, and people were not evacuated. The first thing people knew of the problems was when the Humber started pouring through their front doors, which was a frightening experience for elderly people living in bungalows. No one was there to help them, because the flooding was not expected in that community. Had it not been for the parish council and younger, fitter neighbours, a number of residents could have found themselves in an even more distressing situation.
	Following that flooding I visited all the communities, but it took me three days to get round them all, given the scale of the flooding across east Yorkshire and north Lincolnshire. At that time I was struck by the response of the emergency services, and of the Environment Agency, which has come in for a lot of stick, but whose dedicated personnel were out there on the front line—maybe not at the time that some residents would have liked them, but in the days afterwards and since then, informing and protecting residents.
	I pay a particular tribute to North Lincs council. The flooding happened on the Thursday evening. From the Friday and the Saturday, the council worked with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) on a package of support, which was put in place that Monday morning, of £300 to every home that was flooded and a £1,000 interest-free loan to every resident who had been flooded, repayable over five years, starting six months from the date of the flooding. That package was available and was delivered to people by the end of that week. So within a week they knew the council was there to support them.
	I want to say a little about the history of flooding in our area. We know we are likely to flood. I live next to one of our tidal rivers. On 5 December it was about 6 feet higher than my front room; fortunately it did not overtop, but only by an inch or two. We know we live in an area that was drained by Cornelius Vermuyden in the 17th century. It is former marshland. We know the risks we face. That does not mean that we should be written off.

Martin Vickers: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Andrew Percy: I give way to my honourable neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes, who did so much to support his communities.

Martin Vickers: Does my hon. Friend agree that local knowledge is particularly important in forecasting, and that it would be very useful if we brought the farmers and councillors who serve on drainage boards into the equation a little sooner?

Andrew Percy: That is absolutely correct. It ties in with the point I am making, which is that in 2007 the river catchment plans for the Trent, the Ouse and the Aire were all issued, and those plans at that time suggested reducing defences. That was at the time of the last Labour Government. I, as a local councillor and a prospective parliamentary candidate, did not go around saying that the Labour Government wanted to flood our areas, but the catchment flood plans that we faced at that time would have reduced our defences substantially. We fought them very hard. Largely because of the information and skill of the drainage boards and local farmers, we were able to disprove the Environment Agency’s argument for its proposal and to win a change in the policy, so now our defences will be maintained and improved in line with rising sea levels.
	That is all now subsumed by the River Humber flood strategy. This is where we really need some action. That strategy was adopted in 2008 for the Humber. It highlights large parts of my constituency as in need of improved defences, but at some time in the future—15 years hence. That is not good enough, bearing in mind what we have seen in the past few weeks. We need the funding for that, and we need to know what that strategy actually means. At a public meeting in South Ferriby, and in the previous public meeting we held at Reedness, residents were saying, “It is fine for our areas to have been identified in 2008 as needing improvement, but it is not good enough for us not to know when that will happen.” That is why I am pleased that last night the Conservative group on North Lincs council passed a budget that is bringing forward £5 million of funding, which we hope will be unlock that other funding.
	What we want from Ministers now is leadership. Where money has been made available to unlock that match funding, as it has from North Lincs council—voted against by the Labour group, it must be said—we want Ministers to ensure that that match funding is unlocked now, not at a time convenient to the EA. Two and a half million pounds of that funding is scheduled for this financial year, specifically for defences on the Humber and the Trent, and the remainder in the forthcoming years. My plea to Ministers would be to ensure that where that match funding is being offered, the EA’s hand is snapped off and we can bring forward this investment as quickly as possible. I will end there, because I understand that there is pressure on time.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: The wind-up speeches are due to start from 6.40 pm.

John McDonnell: I will try to take just five minutes, so that my “hon. Friend for Heathrow, South”—the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng)—can speak.
	I will briefly make three points about constituency matters. I visited on a daily basis those areas of my constituency that were at risk in West Drayton; West
	Drayton came into my constituency at the last general election. We were very fortunate that no homes were flooded but it was a near-run thing, particularly in Frays avenue and Donkey lane, and down in Longford. I cannot pay enough tribute to the Environment Agency staff, who were superb, as were the local fire services. The local council was slow at first, but then really got in on the act. I am very grateful to all of them; I thank all the officers involved.
	I would like to raise one issue with the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson); I would welcome a ministerial meeting, or a meeting with officials, about it. In 2010, there was a proposal for what was called the Arklyn Kennels scheme in West Drayton, for investment to build up concrete and earth-bank defences by 2014-15. Originally, that was a £2.8 million scheme, which subsequently, I am told, was reduced to a £1 million scheme and delayed until at least 2018-19. I hope that, in the light of the events of recent weeks, that scheme will be reviewed and we can look at it again. I would welcome a meeting with Ministers or officials to talk it through, and to bring in the relevant local authority representatives as well, because the area affected is one of those on the Thames floodplain that has demonstrated that we need to do much more.
	The second constituency issue that I want to raise is about Heathrow. I am not trying to be opportunistic; I am just making a relevant point. At the terminal 5 inquiry, detailed submissions were put forward with regard to expanding Heathrow on what is, in effect, the Thames floodplain. The argument put forward in favour of Heathrow expansion then was that rivers would be diverted and culverted, which I do not think has been successful. The Howard Davies review is looking at the various options for runways across the south-east, including at Heathrow, and it is important that his attention is focused on the implications for flooding on the Thames floodplain. Any further expansion at Heathrow—any additional runway—will effectively build up a dam, which will cause flooding further on.
	Finally, I will return to the issue about the Pitt review. Recommendation 39 of the review was that a statutory duty should be placed upon fire authorities with regard to flooding. In opposition, the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats supported that recommendation, and a number of us went to see Labour Government Ministers to urge them to implement it. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee also recommended that it should be implemented; the Chair of the Committee, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), raised the issue in debate after debate. There were delays and we were then told that there would be Operation Watermark, which would eventually determine whether that statutory responsibility would be given to fire authorities. That took place and there were recommendations that the issue should now be addressed. The chief fire officers have come out in favour of the proposal. The Government’s new system of an ideas bank, which I support, has also recommended that the Government act on this matter. I urge the Government to consider it seriously.
	In the coalition agreement, there was an agreement that the recommendations of the Pitt review would be implemented. This recommendation is important, and I will say why. I think that it was the hon. Member for
	Worcester (Mr Walker) who said that there have been improvements in recent years in the supply of equipment and so on. Those improvements came as a result of learning the lessons of past disasters, when firefighters had turned up and there was inadequate equipment. We realised that for decades there had not been sufficient investment because no one took responsibility. Placing a statutory responsibility on fire authorities protects their budgets, ensures that someone takes responsibility, and in the long term cumulatively ensures that the lessons of past disasters are learned.
	This matter must be addressed now. As I say, I hope there is virtual consensus on it, and it just requires political will to undertake it. Let us use this lesson this time round to ensure that this recommendation is implemented and that we do not delay further.

Kwasi Kwarteng: I am very grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate. I am also very pleased to follow my neighbour, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), even though we have different views on airport expansion. We are not speaking about that issue today, so we can come together with a degree of comradeship and co-operation.
	I am also pleased to speak on behalf of people who live by the River Thames. Pictures have been shown and seen around the world of massive flooding and a considerable amount of devastation in the Thames valley. I know that it is fashionable in this House to suggest that action was only taken when the Thames itself was flooding, but as a Member of Parliament representing a Thameside seat I have to say that a considerable number of families and a large number of properties were materially affected by the flooding. It is absolutely right that attention should be given to the issue.
	I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who came to Guildford street, and saw for himself the problems caused by flooding. In Shepperton, in the south of my constituency, there was a considerable amount of flooding. It is a testament to the people of Spelthorne, who have created a thriving community, that there was so much resilience. Time and again, I spoke to people who were not expecting massive amounts of aid or of intervention. They appreciated that the borough’s resources were stretched, and that the EA and other organisations were under a great deal of pressure. I was impressed by their sheer resilience in managing to deal with a lot of the problems that they faced.
	As for Staines and other areas in my constituency, the problem was not so much—other Members have alluded to this—the rising river level but the problems associated with groundwater, drainage and sewerage. That had a material effect on the—

Bob Stewart: The water table.

Kwasi Kwarteng: Indeed. That really affected people’s lives, and down Guildford street, Garrick close and other places in Staines and beyond, people have had to put up with roads that are waterlogged and flooded with contaminated water. That is the situation that I
	want to bring to the attention of the Government and of the House. It is quite wrong that in 21st-century Britain people should have to put up with that for weeks. Even now, the chances are that it will be another couple of weeks before the groundwater is cleared. That is something that the Government should consider seriously in formulating policy in future.
	People have tried in this debate to make political points about reduced Government expenditure. We all know that, according to the Darling plan of 2010, the DEFRA capital budget would be reduced by up to 50%. We all know that there are responsible people in the Labour party who realise that there was a deficit and, regardless of who won the general election, accept that there would have to be reductions in expenditure. I do not think that it is responsible of Opposition Members to blame the Government for the cuts because, according to the previous Chancellor’s own plan, there would be severe reductions in the budget.

Hugh Bayley: If it is right for the Government to cut the budget to below what it was when they came to office, why is it right for them to propose in two years’ time to increase the budget to more than it was when they came into office?

Kwasi Kwarteng: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that in 2010 we had a budget deficit that we had to reduce. That was clearly the plan on both sides of the House, and it is a cheap political point to blame the Government in that respect.

Hugh Bayley: rose—

Kwasi Kwarteng: No, I am not going to give way, as there is intense pressure on time. I want to conclude by saying that I think that the Government have responded quite effectively to what was an unprecedented situation that was not at all expected. I look forward to working more with members of the Government in future to try to alleviate the problem and see how we can deal with it more efficiently next time, if there should be a next time.

Hilary Benn: May I begin by joining my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government in sending good wishes to the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) for a speedy recovery? We really do look forward to seeing him back in his place.
	We have had an extremely important, well-informed and wide-ranging debate. I would like to express my condolences to the families of those who lost their lives in connection with the recent stormy weather. I also echo the thanks that have been expressed to all those who worked so hard during this extremely difficult time: the local communities, the farmers who supported one another, the council staff who delivered sandbags and provided rest centres where people go when they have to leave their homes, the police, the fire service—the fire service in particular has been praised by my hon. Friends the Members for Derby North (Chris Williamson) and for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) and the hon. Member
	for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes)—the armed forces, the utility companies and the transport companies, all of them, which rescued people and tried to restore power and keep people moving where that was possible, and of course the staff of the Environment Agency.
	I know from my own experience just how committed and dedicated the agency’s staff are and how difficult it must have been for them, at the very moment when they were working all hours, to hear their efforts insultingly and unfairly criticised by some. I do hope they will have taken some comfort from the praise that we have heard from many parts of the House today for their efforts, including praise for individual Environment Agency staff by name, including from the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine). I do not know whether the great big bags were given a name, but the Itchen diversion would probably suffice. It was an example of imagination and innovation in the face of huge quantities of water.

Steve Brine: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Hilary Benn: Very briefly, as time is short.

Steve Brine: It was a restriction of the River Itchen which took the heat out of the river and flooded some farmland to save Winchester.

Hilary Benn: It shows what can happen when people take advice from the experts, as happened in that case.
	We heard powerful testimony from many hon. Members about the effect that flooding has on the lives of the people whom we all represent, and on the communities and the families involved. That has been experienced not just in the past two months, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) in recounting what happened in the terrible summer of 2007. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) spoke about people’s homes. I remember visiting his constituency in 2007. There are few things worse than seeing one’s home invaded by dirty brown water full of sewage, seeing one’s possessions ruined, and in many cases having to flee one’s home with no idea when one will be able to return.
	We live in an era in which, as human beings, we have come to think sometimes that whatever happens, whatever nature throws at us, somebody ought to be able to deal with it, and if it cannot be dealt with, someone must be to blame for what has happened. The truth is that this is nature’s raw power that we are confronting and in the face of it we human beings are small in comparison. It has enormous force. It can wreck a train line. It can, as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) said, reshape the land itself. Of course that does not mean there is nothing we can do; on the contrary, there is a great deal we can do, and that action should be informed by the lessons that we learn.
	I hope that in replying the Minister will tell the House what the process for learning lessons is going to be on this occasion. I commend the approach taken by Sir Michael Pitt in carrying out his review in 2007. It was a widely praised report. I thought it was exemplary. It was clear, practical and full of recommendations, including the proposal, for example, that the Met Office and the Environment Agency should come together to issue a single flood warning. In 2009 we established the Flood
	Forecasting Centre and everybody recognises that it has led to an improvement in the information that has been made available.
	The other lesson is that whatever the recommendations and however good they are, they need to be followed through. I saw the Secretary of State nodding when the point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) in her opening speech. I hope the Government will produce some further implementation reports on the Pitt report and that that of 2012 will not be the last, because we know that there are some recommendations that have not yet been completed.
	We also heard in the debate many examples mentioned by right hon. and hon. Members where the arrangements have worked on the ground—where there has been effective co-operation, the right leadership and all the agencies co-operating. However, we also know from the experience of the past two months that there have been some places—Muchelney is one, Wraysbury is another, and there are others—where residents felt that help was very slow to arrive.
	I think that there is a very fair question to be asked about that. What was the plan locally? If help did not arrive to ensure that elderly people got the assistance they needed, to help folk move furniture and valuables upstairs to stop them being wrecked by the water, and to evacuate people in a timely way, why did it not arrive, especially in places where there had been flooding previously? The Government have a responsibility nationally, but local government and the local community also have a responsibility. We need plans that are not only good on paper, but can be implemented when the time comes.
	Given the number of families who have been forced out of their homes, I am grateful for the swift response—Downing street took about 20 minutes to respond—to my call for families not to have to worry about paying council tax on a home they cannot live in. I would be grateful if the Minister could be absolutely clear that what the Prime Minister said when he was in Wales—that local authorities will be fully funded for the cost of offering a council tax rebate—will happen. The Secretary of State said that the Government have talked about there being enough funding for at least three months, but we know from evidence from the insurance industry, in particular, and the experience in 2007 that people can be out of their homes for a lot longer, perhaps for six or nine months, and sadly in some cases for more than a year.
	Will the Minister also indicate whether the Government are proposing to look again at the rules? To answer the Secretary of State, of course councils should be able to charge more council tax when properties are left empty deliberately, but there was previously an automatic exemption in cases of flooding, for example if someone could not live in their home because it needed repair to make it habitable. That was taken away in the 2012 changes and instead made subject to the discretion of councils. To provide reassurance in the years ahead, I think that it should be automatic in cases of flooding.
	On transport, we all want to see the railway line at Dawlish repaired as soon as possible, because it is an economic lifeline—a point reinforced in my conversation with the leader of Plymouth city council, Tudor Evans. As that and other storm damage reminds us, the complex
	ecosystem of modern life and infrastructure can be very vulnerable, which is why we need to take it into account not just in repairing but in building for the future.
	We must also learn to adapt. We need crossovers on motorways so that when they are flooded cars can turn around and go back the other way. As we heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) and for Newport West (Paul Flynn), we need to plant trees near rivers and look at farming practice and land use helping the water soak away and slowing its rush. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) explained, we need to look at where dredging can and cannot help. We must ensure that when there are huge downpours in towns and cities, the water does not meet a wall of paving slabs, concrete and tarmac, because that is why Sheffield and Hull flooded in 2007. We also need to recognise that although sandbags can help in some cases, it is dedicated flood protection that makes the difference.
	I hope that the Minister will agree to the cross-party talks referred to in the motion, because whoever is in government will have to continue to deal with this problem. There is no doubt that the world’s climate is changing and that humankind’s actions are causing it. The climate impact projections, based on the best science we have, suggest that in the years ahead we will see hotter and drier summers and wetter winters with more flooding.
	Let us just reflect on the past decade. In 2003 a heat wave led to 2,000 excess deaths in this country, even though temperatures were just 2° higher than normal. In 2006 we had a severe drought. Around 8 million people in the south-east of Britain depend on rivers for their water supply. In 2007 we saw widespread flooding across the country, and Great Yarmouth came within 10 cm of being overcome. In 2009 the High street in Cockermouth turned into a raging torrent. This January was the wettest winter month for almost 250 years. The result—we have heard it powerfully expressed today—is that yet more communities in our country are coming face to face with the consequences of a changing climate, in this case as the waters invade their homes.
	We know what happens when these events occur—the drama unfolds, the cameras arrive, the stories are told, the statements are made, and for a while the nation’s attention is focused on what we can see before our very eyes. But we also know that when the waters recede and the weeks and months pass, the long, slow, hard process of recovery continues away from the public gaze. We should come together for the families and communities so that we adapt to what we cannot change and protect what we can, and so that others people do not suffer what so many have experienced over the past two months.

Dan Rogerson: I thank the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) for the spirit in which he closed the debate, and his reflective and thoughtful approach. I thank hon. Members for setting out how their constituents, or people near to them, have been affected. It is a devastating experience to go through flooding. I know that all of us in this House send our sympathies to all those who have been affected, whether in their homes or businesses or
	their communities more broadly. Once again, I should like to thank on the Floor of the House the many people who have worked tirelessly in response to these recent events, including staff of the fire, ambulance, police and other rescue services, local authorities, the Environment Agency in particular, the voluntary sector and local communities—neighbours who have helped each other.
	As we have heard, we have had extreme events since early December with the east coast tidal surge. We experienced flooding over Christmas and it has been the wettest January since 1766 in England and Wales. Central and south-east England have received over 250% of their average rainfall. Recently, flooding has been confined mostly to the Thames valley, Wiltshire and the Somerset levels, with this last, in particular, seeing unprecedented water levels. Groundwater levels remain high across many southern counties. We need to remain vigilant to ensure that communities are protected, because that groundwater will take some time to recede.
	Climate change is referred to in the motion and was mentioned by the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) in her opening remarks. While it is not yet possible to attribute a single instance of extreme weather to climate change, the recent winter storminess is in line with what we expect to see under climate change scenarios. We expect an increase in the frequency and severity of these types of weather events. The UK’s first climate change risk assessment, published in 2012, assessed this trend and informed the report on the national adaptation programme that we published last year. This sets out a wide range of actions by Government, business, councils and civil society to address the most significant climate risks we face as a country.
	Severe damage has affected our infrastructure—the railway at Dawlish, famously, but we have also seen roads cut off and communities swept away. There will be costs that we need to assess, along with local authorities, to ensure that things can be brought back to the condition that local communities need.
	The response has been, and continues to be, a magnificent effort. In the face of such unprecedented weather, countless people and organisations have worked together around the clock to help those affected. The level of response, and the spirit of it, has been staggering. I appreciate how hard everyone has been working and just how hard it is for the people whose homes and businesses have been affected. All levels of Government and the emergency services are fully engaged in dealing with the floods and extreme weather. It has been particularly gratifying to hear Members talk about how that has been put into practice on the ground locally and how people have learnt the lessons of the past to work together on this.
	Protecting our communities against flooding is a high priority for this Government. Existing defences and improvements to the way in which we respond to incidents meant that we were able to protect 1.3 million properties from flooding since December—over 270,000 in the latest flood event. During this Parliament the Government are spending more in cash terms—in real terms—than ever before. The Government are spending £2.4 billion on flood defence over the period 2010-14, compared with £2.2 billion in the previous four-year period.

Hugh Bayley: rose—

Dan Rogerson: I will come back to the hon. Gentleman later.
	In addition to DEFRA funding, we are on course to bring in £148 million of additional funding over this spending review period compared with just £13 million in the previous period. This means that some schemes that perhaps would not meet the cost-benefit ratios that we want from national funding will now go forward because local funding has made that possible.
	Looking further ahead, we have made an unprecedented long-term six-year commitment to record levels of capital investment in improving defences. Since the beginning of December, our defences have taken a terrible pounding. The extra £130 million that we have committed to pay for emergency repairs will ensure that our long-term improvement plans progress as planned. These future schemes will not lose funding that needs to go towards the repairs that we will make sure happen, and are happening immediately.
	Many hon. and right hon. Members have spoken and I want to pick up on some of the points that have been made. The hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) has clearly volunteered to take a PowerPoint presentation to the Somerset levels on how people there could do a better job and how dredging will have no effect whatever. I wish him well with that. I will be there tomorrow and will extend his offer. If he would like to talk to them, I am sure they would welcome that.
	I share the hon. Gentleman’s view, however, that we could do more in terms of land management and local solutions to problems. I think that hon. Members across the House would agree with that and it is something we will take forward in catchment management approaches.
	The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) discussed planning and the need to ensure that it takes account of flood risk and floodplains. The Government’s message not to build on floodplains is very clear and we maintain it. Local authorities, which are of course key to responding to these events, also have an incentive to take account of that. Flood Re includes premiums and excesses, so I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman.
	The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), who, as we heard earlier, looks as radiant as ever, was keen to pick up on a number of issues that are, as he knows, devolved to Wales. I am pleased to hear that he is raising them with the Welsh Government. Flood Re is not devolved and I would be happy to talk to him about it if he wants to raise any further issues. I went to university in Aberystwyth and saw the effect on the west coast of Wales. I would very much have liked to have visited as a Minister, but this is a devolved issue and I respect the duties of Welsh Ministers and what they are doing.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned discussions with the Association of British Insurers and a response to a parliamentary question. I want to clarify that the response was not that we have had no discussions with the ABI on this issue. The question was about technological and process improvements to speed up drying out after flooding, and not about flooding generally. We continue to have regular discussions with the ABI. I did so over Christmas and have done so more recently since the recent flooding events.
	The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) spoke movingly of the impact on his constituency. In particular, I took into account his point about the importance of a timely response from the insurance industry. We have addressed that and I am pleased to say that the spirit in which it is approaching the situation is very reassuring. It knows that mistakes were made in previous years and a number of loss adjusters are getting on with work on the ground.
	The hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) continued his discussion about funding figures. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to him and offered a meeting at which he would be happy to discuss the issues further. I have set out our position and will do so repeatedly, and I will of course answer any questions the hon. Gentleman puts to me in order to ensure that he has all the information he needs to inform his constituents of the actual picture.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) has been a doughty campaigner on behalf of his constituents, as have his colleagues from across Somerset, making sure that what is happening on the levels remains in the public eye and that we get the balance right on all the tools we can use.

Tessa Munt: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Dan Rogerson: I am afraid I do not have time, although my hon. Friend has raised these issues consistently too.
	The hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) highlighted the great responsibility taken by the Environment Agency and, indeed, all the community action that took place to look after residents in his area and the innovative solutions they came up with.
	The hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) was clear in saying that there are no simple answers and that it is worth exploring some of the issues relating to farming practices. They will not be appropriate in every area and we will need a range of tools to tackle this.
	I particularly welcomed comments made by the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) on the role played by armed service personnel in what was delivered on the ground in her area. I recognise the urgency of some of the issues she continues to raise.
	The hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) raised transport issues again—we debated them this morning as well. She will have plenty of opportunities during Transport questions and other debates to pursue my colleagues at the Department for Transport with some of her concerns.
	Hon. Members from along the east coast, including the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), were absolutely right to say that the Government are taking into account the effects on the whole country and that all the measures being put in place to help the recovery will be available to them too.
	I would be happy to meet the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) to discuss the points he raised. The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) focused on groundwater, which is a particular problem that will be with us for some time.
	I reassure hon. Members that we are continuing the implementation of the Pitt review. The vast majority of
	recommendations have been implemented. I do not think, therefore, that the formal need to continue reporting is necessary, but we will continue to update the House on anything that still needs to be dealt with.
	The Opposition have tabled a motion that we are happy to support in the main. We disagree with some issues, but the important thing today is consensus to tackle the problems and recognise the contributions that people have made on the ground.

Alan Campbell: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
	Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
	Question agreed to.
	Main question accordingly put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House notes the recent severe weather which has caused widespread and distressing flooding of homes, businesses and farmland; praises the work of communities, the Environment Agency, the Armed Forces, the emergency services and local councils in assisting those affected; calls on the insurance industry to ensure pay-outs are made as quickly as possible; recognises that continued support will be needed for the communities and businesses affected in the months ahead as homes and infrastructure are repaired; acknowledges the clear scientific evidence that climate change is contributing to the increased frequency of severe weather and the consequent risk of flooding; notes the advice from the Committee on Climate Change that current and planned levels of investment are insufficient to manage future flood risk given the increased threat from climate change; calls for further reports on the implementation of the recommendations contained in Sir Michael Pitt’s report into the 2007 floods to be made to Parliament; and supports cross-party talks on the impact of climate change and the funding and policy decisions necessary to mitigate the consequences of more frequent severe weather on communities and the economy.

Business without Debate

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Dawn Primarolo: There are motions to be taken, so it would be helpful if Members leaving the Chamber did so quickly and quietly.
	With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 3 to 8 together.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Judgments

That the draft Marriage (Same Sex Couples) (Jurisdiction and Recognition of Judgments) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 23 January, be approved.

Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages etc

That the draft Marriage of Same Sex Couples (Registration of Shared Buildings) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 23 January, be approved.
	That the draft Marriage of Same Sex Couples (Use of Armed Forces’ Chapels) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 23 January, be approved.

Marriage

That the draft Consular Marriages and Marriages under Foreign Law Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 23 January, be approved.
	That the draft Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 (Consequential and Contrary Provisions and Scotland) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 23 January, be approved.
	That the draft Overseas Marriage (Armed Forces) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 24 January, be approved.—(Amber Rudd.)
	The Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 5 March (Standing Order No. 41A).

Dawn Primarolo: With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 9 and 10 together.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Representation of the People

That the draft Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 (Transitional Provisions) (Amendment) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 30 January, be approved.
	That the draft Electoral Registration (Disclosure of Electoral Registers) (Amendment) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 3 February, be approved.—(Amber Rudd.)
	Question agreed to.

PETITIONS

Closure of Skerton Community High School (Lancaster)

David Morris: I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in Skerton. Lancashire county council is closing Skerton community high school in my constituency against the wishes of the wider community and, most importantly, the best interests of the students who attend the school. In the first stage of the consultation, more than 99% of responses were against the closure of the school, but Lancashire county council still proceeded with the next stage of closing the school. This petition urges Lancashire county council to listen to the residents of Skerton and to put the children’s best interests at the heart of this decision. I urge the House to support the people of Skerton in my community.
	Following is the full text of the petition:
	[The Petition of the community surrounding Skerton Community High School,
	Declares that the Petitioners believe that Lancashire County Council have not listened to their concerns for the 
	 schools closure in the initial round of consultation and that the County Council should not have perused the closure of the school any further.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take steps to support the School in its bid to remain open.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
	[P001320]

Fire Services in the Cleveland Fire Authority Area (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland)

Tom Blenkinsop: The petitioners include my hon. Friends the Members for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) and for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), who are in their places.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of the UK,
	Declares that the Petitioners believe that it is unfair that the Department for Communities and Local Government have imposed large funding reductions on a high-risk area like Cleveland when lower-risk areas in the South of England have had their central funding increased; further that the Petitioners believe that funding reductions have contributed to the 54.1% increase in total fire calls in Cleveland between 2012/13 and 2013/14; further that the Petitioners believe that it is unacceptable that the Authority’s proposed Integrated Risk Management Plan recommends the closure of Marine Fire Station and the reduction by approximately 25% of the number of the whole-time firefighters; further that the Authority and Government should take steps to protect frontline services and further that a local Petition on this issue has received over 6,000 signatures across Redcar and Cleveland, Middlesbrough, Stockton-on-Tees and Hartlepool.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department for Communities and Local Government to provide a fairer funding settlement that gives due consideration to deprivation and risk, further that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Cleveland Fire Authority to reallocate planned capital expenditure to the preservation of frontline services, and further that the House of Commons urges the Cabinet Office, Department for Communities and Local Government and Cleveland Fire Authority not to further expend on unwanted and high-risk proposals to spin out fire brigades as public service mutuals.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001321]

YOUNG DRIVERS (SAFETY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Amber Rudd.)

Stephen Phillips: I am grateful to have secured this important debate. I tried to do so having learned the tragic story of Emily Challen, a 17-year-old constituent of mine who was killed in a car accident this time last year. Her death has left a void in the lives of her parents and family that few of us can begin to imagine. I pay tribute to her parents, Keith and Jennifer, for their bravery and dignity in telling Emily’s story and in trying to ensure that some good comes of what their family have been through.
	On 15 February 2013, Emily was travelling to school as one of three passengers in a car driven by an 18-year-old friend, when the car ran into the back of a stationary lorry on a slip road. Emily was pronounced dead at the scene. In a few short moments, her promising young life, and the happiness of many whose lives she touched and enriched, were extinguished.
	We cannot, of course, undo what happened that day. What we can do, and what we should be doing, is to try to reduce the chances of what happened to the Challen family happening to anyone else. In short, how can driving be made safer for young drivers? What lessons can we learn from other jurisdictions where young drivers cannot simply pass their test and enjoy the same access to the road network as those who have been driving for years? How can we minimise the chance of other families having to suffer what the Challen family have been through?
	Road crashes are one of the biggest unnatural causes of death for young people in the UK. The figures are appalling and they speak for themselves. Young drivers are involved in one in four fatal and serious crashes, despite making up only one in eight holders of driving licences. One in five new drivers has a crash within six months of passing their test, and we all know that young male drivers have much higher crash rates than young female drivers.
	Why is that so? The reasons are not, perhaps, obscure, but they deserve restatement. As anyone who has been driving for a while knows, young people are more likely to take a number of the deadliest risks on our roads, including speeding, overtaking blind and not wearing a seat belt. Young drivers, especially young men, are more likely to seek thrills from driving fast and cornering at high speed than their older counterparts. Although young people quickly pick up the physical skills of driving and, as a result, feel they have mastered the art and are very confident about their abilities, that is simply an illusion. Young drivers drive unsafely, but they do so believing that they are in control.
	Young drivers do all that when, as anyone who has been driving for years knows, although some hazards on the road are easy to identify, many are not. It often takes experience to notice the hidden hazards, and owing to inexperience, young people may be poor at noticing them and reacting in time to avoid them. The research indicates that, since driving is a new experience for young people, they tend to use most of their mental energy on the immediate tasks, such as gear-changing and steering, rather than on general observation of the
	potential hazards ahead. Inexperience means that they have a poorer ability to spot such hazards; youth means that they are particularly likely to take risks.
	As hon. Members will know, that is not the end of the story. Perhaps most worryingly, young drivers are more likely to drive while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. So it is that drivers under the age of 25 have the highest incidence of failing a breath test after a crash. Any amount of alcohol in the bloodstream can affect a person’s ability to drive safely, as it impairs reaction times and affects the ability to judge speed and distance accurately. Alcohol or drugs, combined with a lack of experience on the roads, is therefore a particularly dangerous mixture.
	Of particular concern to Mr and Mrs Challen, given the circumstances of Emily’s death, is the research that shows that having passengers in the car can cause even higher crash rates among young drivers. Peer pressure can encourage bad driving and result in drivers showing off to their passengers, as well as cause distraction. Research in the United States has shown that the already high crash rate for teenagers when driving alone is greatly increased when passengers are present. With two or more passengers, the fatal crash risk for 16 to 19-year-old drivers is more than five times greater than when they are driving alone.

Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for bringing this important matter to the House for consideration. Is he aware that between the hours of 2 am and 5 am, accidents among young people increase by 17%? Does he feel that the Government should perhaps consider a restriction on young drivers between 2 am and 5 am, to reduce accidents and improve safety?

Stephen Phillips: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I was not aware of the specific figure that he has given, but I will certainly come on to what the Government might do, and what I—and indeed others—think they ought to do.
	The Minister will, I suspect, know the figures I have given to the House, but neither this Government nor their predecessors have taken the action necessary to ensure the safety of young drivers on our roads, as well as that of those who travel with them and other road users. Why? I do not know. I want to hear tonight that the Minister and the Department for Transport will take a fresh look at the issue before more young lives are wiped out in an unnecessary and untimely fashion.
	What can be done to make things safer? Although I accept there is a balance to be struck with social and work mobility for young people, the fact remains that we have to do something. I, and others such as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), have been extremely concerned that the Department has delayed its Green Paper on young driver safety, apparently indefinitely. Let me make clear to my hon. Friend the Minister that not only is that not good enough, but he needs to tell the House why that decision has been taken and, frankly, either reverse it or face the consequences of not doing so, and what that will mean for death and serious injury to young drivers in the future.
	Graduated driver licensing exists in many other countries, and at present I see no good reason for why it does not exist here. Exact requirements vary slightly, but the
	main aim, which any licensing system ought to share, remains the same: to build up the ability and experience of young drivers in stages on a structured basis, to minimise the risks that they face. That means limiting the exposure of new drivers to the dangerous situations I have mentioned. Novice drivers going through graduated driver licensing could be subjected to certain restrictions and conditions, including restrictions on the numbers of passengers they can carry, driving at night and alcohol consumption. A graduated licence system would also go hand in hand with road safety as a compulsory part of the national curriculum in schools, where we should be teaching young people about the risks that they face as novice drivers or young passengers and how to minimise them.
	Presently, we allow eager young 17-year-olds to be out unsupervised on public roads exceptionally quickly. In the UK, drivers can go from never having driven at all to being fully licensed in months or even weeks. Each year, 50,000 17-year-olds pass their driving test with fewer than six months’ driving experience. That gives them very little time to develop experience while under the relative safety of some form of supervision.

James Duddridge: Tragically, I have raised a similar case with the Minister. One of the solutions proposed by the family in that case was a probationary period, perhaps for three years after passing the test, where the P-plate, rather than the L-plate, would need to be displayed. Does my hon. and learned Friend think that would be a good idea as part of the package of solutions?

Stephen Phillips: That is certainly one of the options that the Department ought to consider, along with a number of other options from many other jurisdictions, some of which I will come on to, as part of a graduated licence system. Unless we do something, we will simply continue with this epidemic of death and serious injury to young drivers in this country.
	One thing that could be introduced is a minimum learning period—for example, one year—before taking a theory or practical test. All learner drivers would therefore have time to develop experience under full supervision before being allowed out alone. However, because the Green Paper has been put on hold or delayed, that is apparently not something that the Government are prepared even to consider or consult on, which is more than regrettable.
	Evidence from other countries that have introduced some form of graduated driver licensing system shows that a difference can be made. Analysis of such a system in New Zealand by the UK’s Transport Research Laboratory showed that, following the introduction of a graduated driving licence, there was a reduction in car crash injuries of 23% for 15 to 19-year-olds, and 12% for 20 to 24-year-olds.
	In the great state of Michigan, home to the US auto industry, research has found that young people are 11% less likely to be killed or injured on roads than their parents, thanks to their reformed system of learner licensing. In Washington state, annual deaths and serious injuries among 16 and 17-year-old novice drivers reduced by 59% after the introduction of a driving curfew
	between 1 am and 5 am for the first year, a ban on carrying teenage passengers for the first six months and a licence suspension for under-18s of up to six months for committing two or more violations.
	Why, oh why, are we not learning from those figures and experiences, and saving hundreds of young drivers in the UK from serious injury and death every year? It is not as though calls for something to be done are new. In 2007, the Transport Committee reviewed the evidence available and called for the introduction of a graduated driver licensing system, including a minimum 12-month learner period; raising the age of unaccompanied driving to 18; a maximum blood alcohol limit of 20 mg per 100 ml of blood for up to 12 months after passing the test; a ban on passengers aged 10 to 20 years between 11 pm and 5 am for a year; and a learning programme undertaken and examined by an approved driving instructor.
	The House will not be surprised that the report, as with so many good and considered Select Committee reports, appears simply to have been ignored. It is not as though such changes would be unpopular. Again, we have the research to prove it. A survey by the road safety charity Brake and Direct Line found that 87% of drivers thought that learners should be required to achieve a minimum level of experience before taking their driving test and that 81% thought that there should be restrictions on drivers’ licences for a period of time after they first passed their test. If and when the Department publishes a Green Paper, those figures will no doubt replicated in responses, so why on earth are we not getting on with it? How many families have to go through what the Challen family has been through before the Department for Transport gets the message?
	The number of young people being killed or injured on our roads unnecessarily is too high, the present position is untenable, the attitude of the Department inexplicable, the persistence of the problem inevitable and the solution readily and easily apparent. Not only can something be done; something must be done. In the name of Emily Challen, for God’s sake let us do what we were sent here to do and act now.

Robert Goodwill: I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) on securing this debate on the safety of young drivers. I am always glad to have the opportunity to discuss an important subject such as improving the safety of our young drivers. I was extremely sorry to hear of the tragic death last year of his constituent, Emily Challen, and I am saddened by the continuing toll of fatal accidents on our roads. Every one of them is a tragedy.
	There are very few of us who have not been touched by such a tragedy. In my locality, there was a recent road collision involving an 18-year-old friend of my son. His car crashed into a tree and, sadly, he was killed. That shocked the whole year group at Malton school. We cannot be complacent about our road safety record, and we must continue to seek improvements and identify the changes that can make our roads safer for all. This is why it is vital that the Government strike the right balance, so that young drivers remain safe on our roads, but, at the same time, their freedom is not restricted. We
	feel that it is important that all views are considered and the right decisions are made. We will issue a paper when we have considered the matter further.
	Britain’s roads are among the safest in the world. We are proud of that record, but we know that there is more we can do to make our roads safer. The latest figures for 2012 show another drop in the number of people killed on our roads. In fact, it was the lowest figure since national records began in 1926. It is a testament to the hard work and dedication of road safety professionals that we are able to make consistent progress year on year. However, I suspect that, like me, all hon. Members feel a mixture of emotions whenever such statistics are published, because every single one of them is preventable.

Stewart Jackson: I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) on his powerful speech. Does the Minister agree that it is imperative, not least for their own self-interest, that insurance companies are involved in the process of guiding behaviour, given that most young drivers will be driving legally and that fixing insurance premiums to guide behaviour is an important part of changing behaviour in the long run?

Robert Goodwill: Indeed; in fact, many young people cannot drive because they cannot afford the insurance. However, I will come to some exciting developments in the field of telematics, which insurance companies are engaged with.
	It is knowing that deaths are preventable that gives us such a strong incentive to carry on trying to improve what we do. For me, as road safety Minister, that means providing support to road safety professionals such as the police, the fire service and many other road safety organisations. That support may come through funding, policy or raising awareness of important issues.
	As we have heard, young people are involved in about a fifth of all road crashes, but only about 5% of all the miles driven in Britain each year are driven by them. That worries us, and we know it worries parents and young people too. We know that young men cause more crashes than young women and that more collisions occur at night, when young people have their friends in the car or are on roads in the countryside. We also know that drivers of all ages are most at risk of causing a collision in the first six months after they take their practical test.
	We are also conscious that this unfortunate safety record gives our young people some of the highest insurance premiums. As budgets in many households are tight, we want to do what we can to bring those insurance costs down. Estimates provided by the insurance industry suggest that drivers could expect discounts on a telematics policy of between 25% to 33%, with the highest being 50%, and that some young drivers have saved over £1,000 by using such policies. Such policies are cheaper because the claims history of the drivers using them is so much better. It is also worth mentioning that some studies suggest that parental viewing of feedback from telematics devices can improve young people’s driving further.
	For those who are not conversant with the concept of telematics, I would liken it to having the electronic equivalent of a glass of water on the dashboard. Every
	time the water spills because of severe braking or cornering, the policy cost is loaded up. Indeed, there are currently 296,000 live telematics policies from a number of companies in this country. Only recently I met the insurance industry to discuss how we might consider commissioning research into how telematics can change the behaviour and attitudes of learner drivers. Like many things in life, the more someone practises, the better they become. We know that more practice before taking a practical test improves hazard perception and understanding of risk, and results in a lower collision rate.
	The driving test has been steadily refined since it was introduced in the 1930s. We have recently made changes to the theory test, so that it is harder to learn the answers by rote, and we have introduced an element of independent driving—driving without instruction or direction—during the test to help to prepare for the real-life driving environment. The Government recognise that there are many voices calling for a graduated driving licence to be considered or introduced in Britain. We recognise that there is a significant body of evidence to suggest that a GDL regime would have a beneficial effect on British road safety. However, against that we need to weigh carefully the implications for the freedom of our young people, as any such change to the law would result in some difficult cases—for instance, where a young person is stranded, unable to drive home legally—or would limit the ability of young people to offer each other lifts and thereby reduce transport costs.
	Caution also needs to be exercised before making quick comparisons between Britain and other countries with GDL regimes. British roads are among the safest in the world and Britain’s road safety record is considerably better than all the countries that have already introduced GDLs, with the exception of Sweden, whose record is similar to ours.
	We are in the process of undertaking some face-to-face research with parents and young people to get a better understanding of the issues from their perspective. As I hope the House can appreciate, this is a difficult topic, as I have mentioned, and it is important that we get this right. Once we are confident that we have struck the right balance between driver safety and restricting the freedom of our young people, we will come forward with our proposals. In the meantime, there are other things we can look to improve.
	We want to improve the quality and accessibility of resources to support road safety. There is a range of resources to support the process involved in gaining a licence, but relatively little information targeted at parents, at those who accompany learner drivers or even at young people themselves on the risks faced by inexperienced drivers after they pass their driving test. There are also initiatives like Bikeability, which operates in the cycling sector, that could be used at an early age to instil road safety behaviours.
	There are technologies that could potentially reduce the crash and casualty risk among novice drivers, and we want to provide incentives for their take-up. Because young and inexperienced drivers’ decisions about the vehicles that they buy are influenced by their overall budgets and by the cost of insurance, new vehicles, which are safer but more expensive, are less likely to be driven by the drivers who are most at risk and who
	would benefit most from the technology. I expect that that will change over time as today’s new cars become tomorrow’s cheap bangers.
	We recognise that if we tighten the processes of learning to drive and licensing, an unintended consequence may be that more young people choose to ride motorbikes or mopeds. We also know that powered two-wheelers are involved in a significant number of crashes, many more than cars. We therefore think it important to consider ways of improving the process of compulsory basic training so that that, too, is as safe as we can make it.
	We are worried about the safety of our young people. It is simply not right that a young woman in Britain
	today is most likely to be killed while being driven by her boyfriend. The safety record of our young and inexperienced drivers has long been a topic of discussion among the road safety and insurance communities. I hope that the examples that I have given illustrate our determination to work with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham to improve road safety throughout our country. In the months ahead, our objective will be to ensure that we contribute to the reduction in the number of accidents and fatalities on our roads.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.